Hubble Repair Mission At Risk

MollyB writes "According to Wired, the recent collision of satellites may put the Atlantis shuttle mission to repair Hubble in the 'unacceptable risk' status: 'The spectacular collision between two satellites on Feb. 10 could make the shuttle mission to fix the Hubble Space Telescope too risky to attempt. Before the collision, space junk problems had already upped the Hubble mission's risk of a "catastrophic impact" beyond NASA's usual limits, Nature's Geoff Brumfiel reported today, and now the problem will be worse. Mark Matney, an orbital debris specialist at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas told the publication that even before the collision, the risk of an impact was 1 in 185, which was "uncomfortably close to unacceptable levels" and the satellite collision "is only going to add on to that."'"

Comments

hmm.

[apodyopsis]

we were discussing the debris problem at work over coffee the other day.

we were trying to find solutions to it in our non-expert fashion.

sadly the best we could come up with were:

(1) putting a impact shield around spacecraft - but the kind of impact speeds we are talking about probably makes this uneconomical as the shield would need to be massive.
(2) some kind of automated space cleaner that went around removing debris - but we had no idea how that could possibly work or be designed
(3) vastly improved tracking capabilities so we could avoid the worst areas and steer around them
(4) pre-emptive removal of dead satalites (no, not shooting them down from earth - attaching small moters to send them into the atmosphere) - maybe steering them into a declining orbit as the last thing they do before swithing them off
(5) just abandoning the whole outer space game anyhow and using a vast fiber optic ring on the surface for communication needs

there were probably other ideas that we came up with that I cannot remember, but this might get some comments/advice/derision.

but we all agreed, this problem will only get worse. and choosing different orbit altitudes only delays confronting the issue - but might be cheaper in the short term.

Re:hmm.

[Ihlosi]

putting a impact shield around spacecraft - but the kind of impact speeds we are talking about probably makes this uneconomical as the shield would need to be massive.

The spacecraft would have trouble getting off the ground. That's even worse than uneconomical.

some kind of automated space cleaner that went around removing debris - but we had no idea how that could possibly work or be designed

The problem with this is - if that "cleaner" gets hit by debris, you've just added to the problem instead of reducing it.

pre-emptive removal of dead satalites (no, not shooting them down from earth - attaching small moters to send them into the atmosphere) - maybe steering them into a declining orbit as the last thing they do before swithing them off

That would have been a way to keep the problem in check, and it's being done with some satellites. But usually whoever puts satellites up there is too cheap to worry about disposal, since by the time it becomes a problem, they're most likely not around anymore and don't have to worry. Yay, just let the following generations clean up the crap, just like with everything else.

Re:hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Automated space cleaner... Perhaps a satellite that's solar powered and uses an electromagnet to repel pieces into the atmosphere? Although I suppose that would push it out of orbit... Maybe if there's enough air it could compress some and then use it as a jet to keep in orbit...

Planetes anyone? One of my favorites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes

Re:hmm.

[plasmacutter]

1) - there is moderately workable impact shielding developed for satellites/space craft which consists of plates separated by gaps which spread out the kinetic energy of debris and has been proven effective against small impacts.

2) "space cleaning" could easily be done by deploying some large engineered dragnet style objects into the path of the debris. Obviously careful engineering would have to be used to assure collisions dont cause pieces to splash from the dragnet, but I think its quite doable.

3) we already track space debris down to very small levels. Currently nasa have maps of these pieces, down to the size of a screw if I remember correctly.

4) this is often done already, at least by government agencies. Private companies are another matter, but i've never heard of a private satellite going completely out of use.

5) we may as well just nuke it all now if we don't establish extra-terrestrial colonies. Colonization of space is the next logical step for a species which develops intelligence, and if we don't continue down that path we are a dead-end branch waiting to be pruned from the tree of life.

Re:hmm.

[ramul]

This probably wouldnt work because not all debris is metal but could you not deflect a lot of it using some very strong magnets placed at either end of the shuttle?

They could pulse on detection of debri with calculated strength to deflect metal debri. Perhaps place the magnets on booms to give distance from the shuttle?

this is an absolute laymen idea but hey, you never know.

Re:hmm.

[Rollgunner]

The problem with so many ideas to remove space debris is that most of them seem to add to the problem. Even microscopic particles can do tremendous damage at the velocities concerned.

The best idea I've come up with would be to send a cannister into the path of the debris to be removed at a slightly lower relative velocity. This device would then open, releasing a huge cloud of rapidly expanding resinous foam (think of the canned stuff you use to fill holes in the wall). The debris would then impact and become lodged in the hardened foam. The very large (but very low mass) object could then be caused to burn up in the atmosphere.

Then again, getting the canister up there will, of course, generate *more* debris...

Re:hmm.

[mlush]

(1) putting a impact shield around spacecraft - but the kind of impact speeds we are talking about probably makes this uneconomical as the shield would need to be massive.

It may be possible to make a lightweight space armour There is string vest plate and Spaced armour which both rely on breaking up the impactor. Send up the armour flat packed erect it on site and perhaps fill the gaps between the plates with some sort of cavity wall insulating foam. I'd guess the plates could be spaced much further apart giving the debris more time to spread out

Granted it would not stop an incoming tool kit, but that it big enough to be spotted and dodged

Re:hmm.

[Arthurio]

2) It's easy. All we need to do is either invent tractor beam or send a huge automated squirt gun to the orbit that will shoot the debris off the orbit with water :D It might also be possible to disintegrate the debris with an anti-missile laser. Besides what could be 'cooler' than hypersonic, glowing, molten blobs of titanium.

Re:hmm.

[QuantumG]

we already track space debris down to very small levels. Currently nasa have maps of these pieces, down to the size of a screw if I remember correctly.

Manually.

Yeah, Michael Bay films are not a good indicator of military capabilities either.

Re:hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly do expect to repel ferromagnetic materials with an electromagnet?

Re:hmm.

[Big Hairy Ian]

Obviously you can't but you can attract them once you have enough bits slow down enough that they will re-enter in a couple of years, ditch them and speed up again. The only problem is the amount of fuel it would take to do this a few times.

Re:hmm.

[evanbd]

For those curious, the shielding in question is a Whipple shield. The idea is similar to gapped armor -- adding some space after the first impact gives the debris / projectile time to break up and spread out, making the next layer's job easier.

Re:hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good Ideas, but I think the efforts of NASA should be focused in this direction.
1. All spaceflight should be robotic (for now) and be missions that improve science and life back on earth.
2. Besides meeting commitments on the I.S.S., All of NASA's money for manned exploration should go towards developing a next generation power reactor that is capabale of getting a ship into orbit from earth. I think projects such as (ITER, the former NCSX reactor, from PPPL, the EMC2 project focusing on a variation of Inertial Electrostatic Confinement the Polywell, invented by the late Robert Bussard, currently funded by the USN, should be the focus of their attention. The reactor could heat water which could be used as the reaction mass on earth to orbit launches. It could then power an electromagnetic shield to deflect charged particles in deep space(doesnt help other particles like neutrons & gamma getting through however). Forgoing human spaceflight for 30 years could save us another 50 of launching using chemicals, and get huge ships into orbit with the power (ie, a directed energy beam) to clean up crap.

Re:hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

so the laser melts the debris; in the absence of gravity it forms an almost perfect sphere and cools down again when the laser has shuts down.
then what?

Re:hmm.

[Firethorn]

As opposed to the fuel it's going to take to have the various other functional satellites, shuttles, and the station dodge all the time?

One idea I saw was to use an aerogel, that really sparse foam, to catch things. Well, set them closer to the deorbital path.

The idea is that the foam is so light that the wrench or whatever that hits it doesn't break up, the foam doesn't break up, so there's no additional fragments. Meanwhile, if you've set the orbit up right, the foam slows the debris down a tad, speeding up the time it'll take to hit atmosphere.

Re:hmm.

[Cally]

Re (4), deorbiting (or parking) dead satellites - this already happens to some extent, if vehicles are still commandable at EOL and have enough delta-v in the tank to make it to a high parking orbit (or a de-orbit burn), that's usually done. I've also seen tethers mooted as a fuel-free EOL mechanism for deorbit (winch out a 20km cable which drags through the upper atmosphere and burns off enough velocity to make the sc re-enter and burn up.) Problem is that all this costs mass, which means money. There's also the problem that lots of debris isn't under any kind of command (chunks of upper stages, satellites that died in action, dropped screwdrivers, slag from old Iridiums and and so on.)

Re:hmm.

[Cally]

i've never heard of a private satellite going completely out of use.

Are you kidding? There are hundreds of dead telecom and remote sensing spacecraft in orbit.

Re:hmm.

[paiute]

putting a impact shield around spacecraft - but the kind of impact speeds we are talking about probably makes this uneconomical as the shield would need to be massive.

The spacecraft would have trouble getting off the ground. That's even worse than uneconomical.

Here's a thought. What if each spacecraft did not lug a big old shield up into orbit. What if we build an orbiting "overcoat" which had the necessary shielding and a space inside to accomodate the spacecraft. Then you launch as light as you can and dock with your overcoat. Slip it on, and you are good. Unchecked by launch weight, you could make this overcoat as thick as needed to protect against micrometeorites as well as radiation.

Re:hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just launch some bombs and detonate them in orbit. Make sure the blast radius is large enough to either force the surrounding debris along with the debris generated by the bomb out of orbit or into the atmosphere.

Nuke it from the ground. It's the only way to be sure.

Re:hmm.

[Talderas]

And how many years will it take to lug the shield up there and build it?

Re:hmm.

[tygerstripes]

Reading the article you linked:

...but also increases the thickness of the spacecraft walls, which is not ideal for fitting spacecraft into launch vehicle fairings.

Did anybody consider developing the Whipple Shield to "expand" on deployment? Store the layers tightly packed, then space the layers apart either mechanically or using some kind of compressed filler-material once the payload is deployed.

The laminated nature of the hull would provide additional benefits to pressurised, manned payloads, since it would provide tougher, lighter shielding and insulation.

Re:hmm.

[Ihlosi]

Or just launch some bombs and detonate them in orbit. Make sure the blast radius is large enough to either force the surrounding debris along with the debris generated by the bomb out of orbit or into the atmosphere.

Two points:

1. Blast radii of bombs are small (that includes nuclear ones).

2. Space is big.

Re:hmm.

[byronf]

4) pre-emptive removal of dead satalites (no, not shooting them down from earth - attaching small moters to send them into the atmosphere) - maybe steering them into a declining orbit as the last thing they do before swithing them off

This is second hand, but I had friends who worked on the Iridium project, and from what I understand all the Iridium satellites were equipped with a system to take them out of orbit and burn up in the atmosphere at the end of life. In fact, I believe that the satellites will deorbit automatically if they loose contact with ground for a certain period of time. I recall this was a concern on a couple of occasions because right after launch they lost contact.

Re:hmm.

[MadnessASAP]

Wouldn't work, there's no atmosphere in space so bombs dont make explosions like they do in an atmosphere. It's jsut a big pulse of electricity, certainly anything near it would be vapourized but they would have to be REAL close otherwise they would just heat up and melt a bit. On top of that there would be a nice big EMP which would make any country beneath the bomb very upset.

Re:hmm.

[theeddie55]

Space Roombas. That image will keep me amused for literally minutes!

Re:hmm.

[DarkAce911]

NASA has been kicking around the idea of a Space Tug and space vacuum cleaner. The cleaner would be a satellite that has some kind of sticky foam outer shell that will collect the small stuff.

Re:hmm.

[silanea]

Here's a thought. What if each spacecraft did not lug a big old shield up into orbit. What if we build an orbiting "overcoat" which had the necessary shielding and a space inside to accomodate the spacecraft.

And that overcoat is built by hauling material from the earth into space (with every transport flight being exposed to the very risk that now jeopardises the Hubble repair mission), putting it together there (with those unlucky astronauts who have to do this being exposed to the very risk that now jeopardises the Hubble repair mission), to then haul up the actual spacecraft (with that transport flight being exposed to the very risk that now jeopardises the Hubble repair mission).

You are not, by chance, an accountant, a corporate lawyer or a politician?

Re:hmm.

[Annorax]

(4) pre-emptive removal of dead satalites (no, not shooting them down from earth - attaching small moters to send them into the atmosphere) - maybe steering them into a declining orbit as the last thing they do before swithing them off

This assumes that no satellites ever malfunction. Unfortunately, when satellites unexpectedly die in orbit, there is no way to say "and by the way, now that you're not responding to our commands would you please de-orbit yourself". One might argue that all satellites be programmed to deorbit if they lose contact or become disabled, but even such an automated system could be prone to failure -- in the positive and the negative.

The positive would be when such an automated de-orbital system failed to work when it was supposed to do so and the negative would be when an automated de-orbital system fails and causes a satellite that was working perfectly fine to de-orbit by mistake. How do you explain that to investors?

In this very instance, the Russian satellite that was involved in the collision was reportedly uncontrollable from the ground due to some apparent failure.

Like you said, this is a very difficult problem. I like the "space garbage collector" idea a la "Space Balls", but such a craft would require a nearly limitless supply of fuel in order to change orbits to intercept the space junk at sub-catastrophic speeds.

Re:hmm.

[arb phd slp]

One idea I saw was to use an aerogel, that really sparse foam, to catch things. Well, set them closer to the deorbital path.

The idea is that the foam is so light that the wrench or whatever that hits it doesn't break up, the foam doesn't break up, so there's no additional fragments. Meanwhile, if you've set the orbit up right, the foam slows the debris down a tad, speeding up the time it'll take to hit atmosphere.

Didn't we use something like this to catch dust from a comet tail?

On a larger scale, it might clean part of an orbit. (I hope it is possible to clean out an orbit, because just waiting for junk to deorbit is going to be really impractical once space travel and the debris it will inevitably produce increase.)

And why doesn't Netflix have Planetes? I've been interested in watching it for years.

Re:hmm.

[Tekfactory]

Funny,

When I said this last week after the satellite collision, I didn't get modded at all.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1124697&cid=26830543

Oh well, the idea is out there, it somebody actually implements it, that will be more gratifying than mod points.

Re:hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

putting a impact shield around spacecraft - but the kind of impact speeds we are talking about probably makes this uneconomical as the shield would need to be massive.

The spacecraft would have trouble getting off the ground. That's even worse than uneconomical.

You could do a couple meters of foam for pretty cheap and light. It would be pretty good at slowing down the smaller chucks.

Bigger stuff would still be a problem, but you are talking about railgun speeds. Even a hard and heavy shield isn't going to be too great at stopping a pound of metal closing at Mach 8.

Re:hmm.

[paiute]

Here's a thought. What if each spacecraft did not lug a big old shield up into orbit. What if we build an orbiting "overcoat" which had the necessary shielding and a space inside to accomodate the spacecraft.

And that overcoat is built by hauling material from the earth into space (with every transport flight being exposed to the very risk that now jeopardises the Hubble repair mission), putting it together there (with those unlucky astronauts who have to do this being exposed to the very risk that now jeopardises the Hubble repair mission), to then haul up the actual spacecraft (with that transport flight being exposed to the very risk that now jeopardises the Hubble repair mission).

You are not, by chance, an accountant, a corporate lawyer or a politician?

Some people choose to sleep with their pants on because they are reluctant to get out of bed in the morning and suffer cold legs.

Re:hmm.

[cowscows]

The best idea that I've heard about is the "laser broom". Basically big ground based lasers that shine up into space and hit orbiting junk with enough energy that they start to ablate. As the material ablates from the pieces, a small amount of thrust would be created, which would alter the pieces' orbits and eventually cause them to reenter the atmosphere and burn up.

It doesn't require putting any new material up into orbit, so you're not potentially creating even more matter up there to deal with. I think the biggest issue (besides economics) would be making sure that the laser doesn't damage any functional satellites, but that's not a hard problem to solve, as satellites are very closely tracked.

Re:hmm.

[TheGeniusIsOut]

Electro-magnets wouldn't do so well, since they will only work on magnetic materials. Large Van De Graaff generators, however, would generate static fields attracting most any object, or at least polarize their charges to the point that the Earth's geomagnetic field could get a grip on them, likely slowing them to the point of deorbit. These could be made cheaply, set into an orbital path to clear, and then burn up on re-entry when they have collected sufficient mass to themselves deorbit.

Re:hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. A blast radius would be MUCH larger in space than on Earth because there is no atmosphere to slow it down.

2. The space above Earth is limited, especially if they are only clearing a path for Hubble.

Re:hmm.

[Rich0]

Agreed. If you made some kind of inflatable aerogel or foam wall and put it into orbit then it would be bashed by debris, which would slow the debris down somewhat and speed their re-entry. The foam would have booster rockets to keep it in orbit (and keep it out of the way of active satellites). When those boosters run out of fuel, or something causes them to fail, then the huge mass of foam would rapidly deorbit since it would have a high drag:mass ratio.

You could even put the foam in retrograde orbit if you really wanted to slow down debris, although this might make it harder to keep out of the way of active satellites.

Re:hmm.

[Fastball]

(2) some kind of automated space cleaner that went around removing debris - but we had no idea how that could possibly work or be designed

Put a gyroscope in a Roomba?

Re:hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Aerogel is only useful to catch dust particles.. anything larger would rip parts of aerogel away so it would eventually become full of holes and with less efect than it started. Also the slowing effect would be negligible even if the aerogel would be hundreds of meters thick (non-metric, please think 1000+ feet), thus impossible to launch anyways.
 

Re:hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry man, you guys are obviously not rocket scientists... or evil geniuses either.

What you need are Space Sharks with Giant Lasers.

dr. Evil

... thank you I will be here all week...
don't forget to tip your waitress

Re:hmm.

[Kagura]

1/d^2

Re:hmm.

[damonlab]

(2) some kind of automated space cleaner that went around removing debris - but we had no idea how that could possibly work or be designed That's easy. The design has been made already. You can tell from the picture how it would work: http://datacore.sciflicks.com/spaceballs/images/spaceballs_large_15.jpg

Re:hmm.

[mrdoogee]

Only if your relative velocity is 10 KPH or less to it. Imagine for a second this object and you are traveling towards each other at Mach 5. You would never see it and most likely the impact would cause you to explode, or worse.

To paraphrase Einstein: Relativity is a bitch.

Re:hmm.

[CrimsonAvenger]

What if we build an orbiting "overcoat" which had the necessary shielding and a space inside to accomodate the spacecraft. Then you launch as light as you can and dock with your overcoat.

Alternatively, build that OTV that was supposed to be part of the shuttle system, park it at the ISS, and do repairs using it, instead of the shuttle.

That way, we could use the shuttle to, well, shuttle parts and fuel up for missions of this sort...

Re:hmm.

[jstott]

(4) pre-emptive removal of dead satalites (no, not shooting them down from earth - attaching small moters to send them into the atmosphere) - maybe steering them into a declining orbit as the last thing they do before swithing them off

The term you're looking for is "controlled re-entry," and this is already done on a regular basis, when possible. The problem is, as we saw with the Russian satellite, you can't have a controlled re-entry once you've lost ground control (e.g., because of electrical or mechanical failures). For an out-of-control satellite, there is no simple solution.

-JS

Re:hmm.

[Nai7]

It seems to Planetes on Netflix I just added it to my queue, at least season 1.

Re:hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Several satellites have failed to properly operate after launch (including the FSU satellite that is half of this collision). If they fail in a manner that prevents motors from firing or guidance from working correctly then you have an orbiting collision waiting to happen.
As for failed commercial satellites, Dish Network had one happen not quite a year ago. However they had enough control to move the satellite. A google search will show other satellites that failed including some that failed well after launch and cannot be moved under their own power.
That last point brings up a possibility from the original post: what about a mission that delivers a small motor-navigation package to a dead satellite? The motor-navigation unit could try to "dock" with the dead satellite and attempt to move it out of the way - either raising it out of geosynchronous orbit if at that altitude or deorbiting a LEO satellite.

Re:hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

A reverse tractor beam that repels matter will do it.

Re:hmm.

[excesspwr]

How about a space debris collector fabricated from a large percentage of aerogel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel perhaps in a giant sphere shape that we sweep through orbital debris fields like a big mug scrubber http://www.bsi123.com/pm-348-2-glassmug-spongescrubber-brush.aspx

It's light weight and aerogel has been used by NASA before.

IDK I'm just spit ballin' here.

Re:hmm.

[HTH NE1]

putting a impact shield around spacecraft - but the kind of impact speeds we are talking about probably makes this uneconomical as the shield would need to be massive.

The spacecraft would have trouble getting off the ground. That's even worse than uneconomical.

You could use a ballute for a shield, deployed when you reach the dangerous area. It's been suggested before as a deployable heat shield and way to safely slow down a spacecraft by skimming the outer atmosphere of Jupiter. I hear it's dynamite on paper, and about a year from realization.

Re:hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

You make the shield structure a relatively simple design, and you design robots to help put it together. You shoot the components up by rocket.

Re:hmm.

[jibjibjib]

Abandoning outer space wouldn't work, because we use it for things other than communications. (Navigation, earth observation, space observation, and research).

A massive solid shield around spacecraft would probably be too heavy. But how about a magnetic shield? By manipulating magnetic fields in a particular way and making the spacecraft a particular shape, it might be possible to deflect incoming metallic debris.

Re:hmm.

[jd]

I picture a "space cleaner" as using a method analogous to the shielding on the Giotto probe for Halley's Comet. That used alternating layers of aluminium foil and kevlar to vaporize incoming particles. It was knocked off-course by something the size of a pea, but it survived.

Now, imagine something built along the same sort of design but with more layers and where the only steering requirement is that it stays in orbit. You might even be able to get away with a simple ion drive for that.

This vehicle would not "sweep" debris out the way, into the atmosphere, or into some sort of container. Rather, it would follow a much simpler principle of ramming into the junk. As long as the shielding holds up, the debris will either be destroyed or contained within the kevlar.

This might work, because you only have to care about the very small debris. The large fragments can be detected and avoided. The fragments too small to be detected are the dangerous pieces of space junk, and are also the most numerous.

Such a vehicle might even be reusable, as you can send a shuttle up with a spare fuel cylinder for the ion drive and some fresh shielding.

If this turned out to be viable, you could then adapt the approach to eliminate larger space junk - simply lob explosives up into orbit to reduce the large chunks into many small fragments. So long as you always cleaned up more fragments than you generated, you'd remain ahead of the game and could clean orbit quite quickly.

Re:hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

People are gonna tell you this and that but these are actually all very good thinking and valid answers as far as they go; and they all have workable implementations, yes even the shield. The solution is to implement all.

1. The shields do not have to be massive at all however I'm not at liberty to point out the existing pieces of the puzzle (it's all available here and there on the internet from sources as diverse as NASA, ESA, Mythbusters, physics textbooks, and Pentagon. None of it requires any unobtanium). This solves part of the problem.

2. Gooballs, force exerters, deflector slabs. They all work and a and c particularly well for debris fields, however they are currently deemed too expensive (although we're soon approaching a threshold were insurance companies and the international community might cough up the funds for this approach). This solves part of the problem.

3. Yes, already partially implemented and let's not forget the computing power to calculate future collisions. The current capabilities are lacking but it's both feasible at fairly low costs (just don't do it the way NRO and USAF do it) and improves military situational awareness (just not for airspace or you'll bleed money like Congress). This solves part of the problem.

4. Yes, already been done for years for some satellites, been possible for years for all others as long as someone is willing to pay for it or mandate it. This solves part of the problem.

5. Yes, currently existing and continues to grow every day. This solves part of the problem.

1-4 requires space to be recognized as important, there are words to such effect but a distinct lack of action.

Re:hmm.

[treeves]

Nitpick: Mach 8 has no meaning in vacuum. ("in space, no one can hear you scream...")

Re:hmm.

[CodeBuster]

But usually whoever puts satellites up there is too cheap to worry about disposal

Not only that, but if you use that last bit of fuel for station keeping instead of de-orbiting then a satellite will have a few more months of useful life (which means more satellite TV and phone subscription payments) before you have to send up another one. The Space Junk problem is a classic case of the Tragedy of the Commons and Externalized Costson a grand scale.

Re:hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

4 is a combination area;

You need to put a legal responsibility on companies to properly "dispose" of a satellite. GEO sats are typically disposed of by sending them a little higher and letting them just die. Dead GEO sats collect at two orbital graveyard points dues to gravitational non-uniformity of the earth, at a slow pace, so collisions if they happen are of the slow bump variety. LEO has many angles of inclination, so disposal usually implies reentry. One way to guarantee reentry without requiring EoL fuel for controlled deorbit (at fantastic cost) is to use a resistive electrodynamic tether. Fire the tether off a spool, then ground the bastard to the frame. Magnetic drag on the tether will yank the sat down quick enough at relatively low weight. I think they tested this to deorbit DeltaIV upper stages once or twice.

Re:hmm.

[Ihlosi]

By manipulating magnetic fields in a particular way and making the spacecraft a particular shape, it might be possible to deflect incoming metallic debris.

For something coming directly your way, the only thing you're going to accomplish is making things worse by increasing the impact velocity.

Maybe a gigantic eddy current brake might work and slow down debris enough to reenter more quickly. However, it'll also work just fine on any satellite that's out there, so it's probably only something to consider if there's so much junk in orbit that we need to clean it up no matter what the collateral damage is.

Ablation Cascade?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the debris problem is so bad, wouldn't this end manned spaceflight for NASA completely? How is it a problem for the space shuttle that wouldn't be for another craft? Is the risk so bad that the orbit hubble is in now reserved for unmanned craft?

This sounds like some bullshit internal politics to me and that there is a lot more to the story.

Same orbit?

[D4C5CE]

Is debris from that collision heading even remotely to Hubble's orbit (otherwise, any future manned spaceflight/EVA at its altitude would be precluded by unacceptable risk), or is this just an excuse for putting elsewhere the money and other resources set aside to fly this mission?

Re:Same orbit?

[necro81]

There is no reason to believe that the debris field will all remain in the orbits of the original satellites. When they collided, parts got thrown all over, radiating outward from the collision point. Some of those were thrown forward (faster along one orbital path than the original satellites), some were thrown backward (slower than the original orbit), some thrown up (away from earth), some down, and some sideways. The ones that were shot forward will end up in higher orbits, including some at the altitude of Hubble. The ones shot backwards will mostly deorbit and burn up. The others are a bit less predictable - their orbits will be eccentric and in different planes than either original satellite, with changes in altitude, too.

So, no, it isn't possible to rule out the risk because Hubble's orbit was drastically different. Moving from one orbit to another just takes some energy, and there was plenty of energy involved in the collision, and plenty of smaller bits to make it statistically possible for one to reach it.

Re:Same orbit?

[camperdave]

Is debris from that collision heading even remotely to Hubble's orbit

The problem isn't that the debris might be heading to Hubble's orbit. The problem is that the debris cloud is between us and Hubble, and it's getting larger.

There was an SF author, probably Asimov, who wrote how mankind might become trapped on the planet because of the ever increasing debris field. Over time, all that debris will flatten into a ring, but that will take millions of years.

Re:Same orbit?

[pnewhook]

The problem isn't that the debris might be heading to Hubble's orbit. The problem is that the debris cloud is between us and Hubble, and it's getting larger.

No, Hubble is below the orbit that the satellites collided in by about 150Km.

Re:Same orbit?

[camperdave]

/me double checks...

You're right. Wikipedia puts Hubble at 560km, and the satellite collision point at 790km, so the debris is actually closer to 230km higher than Hubble.

I thought Hubble was in a higher orbit than that. However, I should have realized that since the shuttle can reach it, it can't be that high.

No, it's not the end

[Bearhouse]

Firstly, Hubble is working fine. Secondly, FTA "NASA spokeswoman, Beth Dickey, would not specifically comment on whether or not the collision had created elevated risk for the Hubble repair mission.

"What we've told everyone is that there is an elevated risk to virtually any satellite in low-earth orbit," Dickey said. "As far as NASA's assets are concerned, that risk is considered to be very small. I have not seen or heard anything that would lead me to think differently."

Re:No, it's not the end

[FTWinston]

Firstly, Hubble is working fine.

Eh, no. Its practically dead. Thats why every delay to this service mission is so critical - if another couple of gyros go, it won't even be able to orient itself well enough to allow the astronauts to get up close. As it is, most of its main instruments are currently out of action.

Re:No, it's not the end

[smoker2]

Rubbish.

Re:No, it's not the end

[Anonymous Coward]

if another couple of gyros go, it won't even be able to orient itself well enough to allow the astronauts to get up close.

Well, this has happened before with Salyut 7 and Soyuz T-13, when the crew successfully docked with the 'dead' space station.

Maybe this would be more difficult between the suttle and Hubble, but maybe it's not impossible... just too difficult.

Re:No, it's not the end

[The Yuckinator]

Eh, no. Its practically dead. Thats why every delay to this service mission is so critical - if another couple of gyros go, it won't even be able to orient itself well enough to allow the astronauts to get up close. As it is, most of its main instruments are currently out of action.

Funny, it was working fine just last week.

Re:No, it's not the end

[FTWinston]

The visible & UV channels of the Advanced Camera for Surveys have been out of operation since january 07, when its backup electronics died.
Hubble was originally intended to operate with 3 functional gyros at all times, but since 2005 has been operating on 2-gyro mode, to extend its useful lifetime in the face of continuing gyro failure. This limits the area of the sky it can view, and makes precise measurements more difficult. Only 3 of its 6 gyros remain functional, and 2 of these are in continual use just maintaining sub-par orientation.
And of course, we all know that the primary command & data handling unit died last year.
All of this information is readily available wikipedia.

So its main camera is broke, it can't point itself properly, the data handling hardware is broke, the batteries are failing, and there's half a dozen less important things that haev also either failed completely (eg the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph) or partially.
That doesn't come under my definition of 'fine'

Re:No, it's not the end

[FTWinston]

O rly?

I'm a bit of a Hubble fanboy, and I'm appauled that its gotten into such a state, so I'm actually quite keen on this upgrade going ahead.
I'm the sort that, while I appreciate the necessity of them installing an end-of-life de-orbiter, I'm saddened that it can't be recovered and brought back & stuck in a museum somewhere so that I could go & hug it. Seriously, has any one instrument ever done so much for science?

I say this to demonstrate that I'm not just being antagonistic!

Re:No, it's not the end

[FTWinston]

Same difference.

Too difficult = not going to happen
Impossible = not going to happen
=> Too difficult = Impossible

Re:No, it's not the end

[pnewhook]

Eh, no. Its practically dead. Thats why every delay to this service mission is so critical - if another couple of gyros go, it won't even be able to orient itself well enough to allow the astronauts to get up close. As it is, most of its main instruments are currently out of action.

Well if Griffin didn't cancel the robotic repair mission that was not only planned but mostly built and tested, it would have been repaired by now.

Re:No, it's not the end

[FTWinston]

From wikipedia:
In August 2004, O'Keefe requested the Goddard Space Flight Center to prepare a detailed proposal for a robotic service mission. These plans were later canceled, the robotic mission being described as "not feasible".

Shame, cos the robot sure did sound cool...

Re:No, it's not the end

[pnewhook]

In August 2004, O'Keefe requested the Goddard Space Flight Center to prepare a detailed proposal for a robotic service mission. These plans were later canceled, the robotic mission being described as "not feasible [washingtonpost.com]".

Just goes to show you cannot believe everything you read.

In reality, the robotic system was in manufacturing when it was 'canceled'. Goddard continued to fund a scaled back Hubble repair, but only a demo using a mockup robot and the hardware in Goddards full scale Hubble simulation labs. The demos finished as planned and were a complete success. Many of the operations were shown to perform better with robotics than with astronauts (like sliding out the instrument trays).

The planned body of the hubble repair robot is now the SPDM robot on the international space station. That robot already existed and hadn't yet flown to the space station due to the grounding of the shuttles at the time. Since the robot existed, the schedule, capabilities and cost were all feasible.

The robotics mission was canceled because Griffin didn't like the head of MDA (the robotics company contracted to build the robot portion of hte mission) as they had a rivalry when they both worked at Orbital. The whole 'unfeasible' story is a complete fabrication.

Re:No, it's not the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, no. Its practically dead. Thats why every delay to this service mission is so critical - if another couple of gyros go, it won't even be able to orient itself well enough to allow the astronauts to get up close. As it is, most of its main instruments are currently out of action.

Hey Mods! This isn't informative OR insightful!
It is however, completely made up BS.

Re:No, it's not the end

[FTWinston]

Oh, charming.
Ok, firstly here's a citation of the failure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope#Equipment_failure

And given that they need to grab it with the shuttle arm, and that it is both long and has wide solar panel arms, they can't safely get the shuttle in close enough if it its spinning. And if the gyros go, its liable to be spinning.
So, citation for the BS comment please, or kindly retract it back up your ass.

Kessler Syndrome

[plasmacutter]

It's been mentioned before, but this could be the beginning of kessler syndrome, and worldwide space agencies might need to deploy junk removal solutions.

Re:Kessler Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

What goddamn sci-fi show is it that has mentioned this name recently and made every nerd yell it at the top of their lungs as soon as space junk is mentioned in order to look clever?

Re:Kessler Syndrome

[forkazoo]

What goddamn sci-fi show is it that has mentioned this name recently and made every nerd yell it at the top of their lungs as soon as space junk is mentioned in order to look clever?

Dunno if you count it as "recent," but (/me shouts:) PLANETES.

Re:Kessler Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, Wall-E ?

Re:Kessler Syndrome

[redxxx]

pffffttt.. Wall-E doesn't pay as much attention to accurate micro gravity physics.

Hypocracy

[MarkRose]

They'll send tens of thousands of young men (and women) overseas to be shot at and kill others, but not risk seven lives to fucking further humanity and human knowledge?

I don't get it.

Re:Hypocracy

[Davemania]

It's easier to bury dead solider story at back of the newspaper than it is about dead astronauts orbiting around earth.

Re:Hypocracy

[slackbheep]

Pine boxes are cheaper, too.

Re:Hypocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA doesn't employ as many people as military industrial complex-> Bad public relations are less tolerable as a budget consideration.

Re:Hypocracy

[Spasemunki]

"They'll" send tens of thousands overseas? When last I checked, NASA wasn't really given oversight of troop deployment and declarations of war. NASA knows, however, that the public has a low tolerance for highly visible and spectacular deaths, and that every time such a disaster takes place, the entire manned space program and space flight in general is set back by months or years, and given the budget environment and long-standing criticism of their agency may be threatened entirely.

There are dozens of missions that NASA could carry out that have a lower risk profile. What about this particular one is so significant that it's worth accepting the higher risk?

Re:Hypocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

an astronaut costs a lot more than a soldier.

Re:Hypocracy

[diskis]

I have a little feeling that the army is spending more on hardware than NASA.
Space shuttle, 1.7B$ each, 5 pcs built = 8.5B$
B2 bomber, 737M$ each, 20 pcs built = 14.7B$

And at costs like that for hardware, training of astronauts / soldiers is fairly neglible.

Re:Hypocracy

[JasonEngel]

Dead astronauts usually go hand-in-bodypart with a destroyed spacecraft. Said spacecraft is probably worth billions to build and more billions to maintain and actually use. Those 7 astronauts are probably not exactly cheap, either. There's usually decades of training and education involved for each one of them. I haven't even thought to add in the value of the shuttle's payload if it were lost in the same accident.

Now let's look at those soldiers dying by the tens of thousands in a foreign war. Each soldier is pretty cheap on an individual basis compared to an astronaut. Society hasn't invested that much time, resources, or education on the average soldier compared to an astronaut. Their future value to humanity is also statistically and economically lower than the astronaut. The equipment the average soldier goes to war with is only a few thousands - maybe few tens of thousands - of dollars. Said equipment is typically common stuff easily replaced, as is the solider lost with that equipment. Heck, you could easily give a dead soldier's equipment to a live soldier and save a few dollars.

So, dollar for dollar, you have to lose thousands of soldiers and their equipment to reach the same financial loss as the destruction of a shuttle and it's crew. Looking at the Iraq war, America has lost a paltry 4000+ soldiers spread out over a period of 6 years. Compare that to losing a shuttle, it's crew, and it's payload all in one fast blast, and it becomes easy to see why sending soldiers to die in war is so much easier than risking a shuttle mission to repair Hubble.

My point is more commentary on the state of human affairs; life is only important if there is a significant dollar value attached to it.

Re:Hypocracy

[mea37]

They risk astronaut's lives every time they run a mission. In fact I wonder which is more dangerous on a per capita basis -- being a soldier vs. being an astronaut...

It's not that they won't take any risk. It's that some people are discussing whether the risk has been elevated too far above the normal.

Re:Hypocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The Air Force operates the B-2, Perhaps you meant to say Department of Defense?

2) Astronauts are almost always Masters or Doctorate level Scientist or a highly trained senior pilot, always an officer in the Air Force, Navy or Marines. Most of the casualties in warfare are of enlisted men and women. The cost of training someone for the infantry is insignificant compared to the lifetime of training that an astronaut is expected to have.

Soak up debris?

[MichaelSmith]

My thought is to fire a sounding rocket directly into the path of the debris. At the peak altitude the rocket explodes, releasing something like strips of foil which will collide with orbiting debris. Given time, it should be possible to clean up these orbits.

Re:Soak up debris?

[Ihlosi]

At the peak altitude the rocket explodes, releasing something like strips of foil which will collide with orbiting debris.

And what will this accomplish, apart from making the problem worse by creating even more debris?

Re:Soak up debris?

[MarkRose]

The foil strips will make the sky even more pretty and sparkly, just like pixie dust! *taps wand*

Re:Soak up debris?

[stevelinton]

I proposed something like this, but using something like snowflakes or small particles of dry ice instead of the foil, but it seems collisions at the speeds involved behave quite oddly and even "soft" targets can shatter pieces of debris into multiple smaller pieces mostly in pretty much the same orbit as the originals.

I wonder if some kind of magnetic drag could be devised? a big hoop of superconducting wire with a current in it that would slow down conducting debris that passed through it, but gently, so as to drop it into a more quickly decaying orbit.

Re:Soak up debris?

[MichaelSmith]

The objects we want to take out of orbit are in a stable trajectory. If they collide with an object fired directly from the ground they will lose some velocity and move into a lower orbit. Low altitude orbits decay quickly because of drag from the atmosphere so these objects will quickly burn up.

The object you fire from the ground to cause a collision will be shoved sideways a short distance. It can't go into orbit.

Having thought about it for a bit I think the best thing to send up in the sounding rocket is a bottle of liquid nitrogen. It will form an expanding cloud at orbital altitude. Debris which fly through the cloud will lose some speed and their orbits will decay. Sounding rocket firings could be timed to minimise impact on operational spacecraft.

Re:Soak up debris?

[MichaelSmith]

All you really have to do is steal a fraction of the momentum of the orbiting fragment, then it will deorbit. I think pretty much any collision will do that.

Re:Soak up debris?

[stevelinton]

That's what I thought, but apparently what happens is that the fragment shatters, and most of the pieces carry on at almost the same velocity, while just a few are significantly slowed. Essentially your impactor drills a hole through the fragment almost instantly, slowing down only the material actually excavated from the hole. Later, the shock waves propagate sideways through the fragment, shattering it.

Result, more orbiting fragments (albeit smaller ones).

Re:Soak up debris?

[MichaelSmith]

Result, more orbiting fragments (albeit smaller ones).

If the object you send to collide with the dangerous debris is not in orbit before the collision then it can't be in orbit after the collision. I think a cloud of gas might do the trick, deployed from a sounding rocket, fired straight up from the ground.

Re:Soak up debris?

[evanbd]

It's an interesting idea. I think the problem is aiming it; it's essentially the same problem as anti-satellite or anti-missile weapons. Unless your sounding rocket debris cloud is unreasonably large, it's very hard to get it in just the right spot.

Re:Soak up debris?

[Anonymous Coward]

"frickin' sharks with frickin' laser "

Re:Soak up debris?

[deimtee]

Liquid argon.

Re:Soak up debris?

[scharkalvin]

Why not use "fly paper" to catch the small stuff?
Or a big net (same technology as solar sails)?
Then when enough stuff is captured either burn it up by re-entry aimed at a deep trench in the Pacific, or send it into the sun.

Re:Soak up debris?

[MichaelSmith]

Liquid argon.

What properties of argon are you thinking of?

Re:Soak up debris?

[deimtee]

Cheap, non-reactive, easily compressible to a liquid for transpot, heavier molecular weight to increase diffusion time.

Re:Well... I guess we should just stay out of spac

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you would rather they just believe you and your 9/11 truth bullshit?

Space = vacuum

[Anonymous Coward]

(2) ... space cleaner ...

You mean, a vacuum cleaner? Finally, a most appropriate use of the machine!

Re:Well... I guess we should just stay out of spac

[jrationalk]

Stay anonymous bro.

Clean up debris...

[Anonymous Coward]

you just need a big vacuum cleaner...

Re:Clean up debris...

[steve263]

It's already been designed. . . Mega Maid! http://leaningstraightup.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/megamaid.jpg

Nothing being tracked

[Anonymous Coward]

To the best of the public knowledge (DoD has the best picture of what's out there, and they don't share that publicly), nothing that's being tracked is a threat. The two satellites were, and the cores and fragments visible to amateurs remain, respectably clear of Hubble's orbit.

However, there is some concern that stuff could have been knocked off in other directions, or be big enough to be a concern but still small enough to have sufficiently decayed in orbit to be a risk. From following discussions that have included NASA engineers, it doesn't sound to me like this is realistically expected to affect the decision to fly.

Unless something truly serious and unexpected crops up, the Hubble servicing mission isn't going to be canceled. The only reason it hasn't happened already is the computer fault that led them to delay it while preparing a replacement computer for the mission. It wouldn't save any money, although it would free up one more shuttle flight with minimal cost to re-assign to the ISS. After Griffin reinstated the servicing mission, though, NASA has been pretty consistent in its desire to complete it.

Re:Nothing being tracked

[Firethorn]

The two satellites were, and the cores and fragments visible to amateurs remain, respectably clear of Hubble's orbit.

For people not aware; the satellites that collided were on the low end of LEO. Hubble is considerably higher.

although it would free up one more shuttle flight with minimal cost to re-assign to the ISS.

From what I remember, the ISS is lower than the Hubble; wouldn't the risks be very similar for either mission?

Re:Nothing being tracked

[pnewhook]

For people not aware; the satellites that collided were on the low end of LEO. Hubble is considerably higher.

No the satellite collision happened in upper LEO, not lower. Both Hubble and the space station are below the collision orbit.

Hubble is at 560Km, the space station is at 350Km and the collision was at 705Km.

Re:Nothing being tracked

[confused one]

For the people who weren't paying attention, the collision occured at 450 miles. Hubble is around 350 and the ISS is at around 300 (in really round figures). So, the collision occured above Hubble and ISS

Four words

[Anonymous Coward]

Huge Solar Powered Magnets

Atmosphere burnup on re-entry

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Find a way to generate a force that pulls the space junk towards earth's atmosphere, maybe some kind of huge electromagnetic field.
2. Junk enters earth's atmosphere at extremely high velocities, resulting in almost instant burnup.
3. Space junk problem solved, human race saved, fuzzy kittens happy, etc.

You're welcome everyone.

Real issue - Nasa does not want to fix Hubble

[tg123]

I can read between the lines ....

Nasa does not want to fix the Hubble as there budgets have been cut. They want to put the money for fixing the Hubble into something else.

The Hubble is also Obsolete due to new technologies like Adaptive optics that allow ground based telescopes to achieve the same clarity as the Hubble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/adaptive_optics991006.html

Why spend money and risk peoples lives on technology that is obsolete ?

Re:Real issue - Nasa does not want to fix Hubble

[Ihlosi]

The Hubble is also Obsolete due to new technologies like Adaptive optics that allow ground based telescopes to achieve the same clarity as the Hubble.

You can pull as many adaptive whatchamacallits out of the signal processing toolbox, but that doesn't change the simple fact that certain wavelengths will be absorbed by the atmosphere before they even get to your ground-based telescopes.

Re:Real issue - Nasa does not want to fix Hubble

[forkazoo]

You can pull as many adaptive whatchamacallits out of the signal processing toolbox, but that doesn't change the simple fact that certain wavelengths will be absorbed by the atmosphere before they even get to your ground-based telescopes.

Certainly true, which is part of the reason newer space scopes focus on things like X ray or IR observation, rather than visible wavelengths. But, even at visible wavelengths, a space telescope can do some things a ground scope can't, like take a continuous week long exposure. A ground based scope can compensate somewhat with a bigger mirror, and thus accomplish a similar shot in a shorter exposure, but it just can't manage that kind of continuous observation. (And, to take a week long exposure with a ground based scope, you'd basically need three weeks worth of observation time, because you can't see that star you want during the day, or when it is obscured by trees near the horizon, etc.

Re:Real issue - Nasa does not want to fix Hubble

[tg123]

................ at visible wavelengths, a space telescope can do some things a ground scope can't, like take a continuous week long exposure. A ground based scope can compensate somewhat with a bigger mirror, and thus accomplish a similar shot in a shorter exposure, but it just can't manage that kind of continuous observation. (And, to take a week long exposure with a ground based scope, you'd basically need three weeks worth of observation time, because you can't see that star you want during the day, or when it is obscured by trees near the horizon, etc.

Okay maybe the word obsolete is a bit harsh .....

to me the questions Nasa should be asking are -

How do we get the most out for our dollar ?

i.e. - Can the goal be achieved with less money on the ground ?

Is the risk of sending people to repair the hubble worth it ?

Re:Real issue - Nasa does not want to fix Hubble

[Shag]

Just as a data point, it cost something like a billion (1990) dollars to put Hubble into orbit, and over the life of the program, I think they're talking something like 6 billion total (including salaries for the folks who operate it and every other conceivable expense).

Hubble's primary mirror is about 2.4 meters. There's currently a proposed project to build a thirty-meter terrestrial telescope, either in Hawaii or Chile, for about $1 billion.

Launch costs are a b*tch, yes.

Re:Real issue - Nasa does not want to fix Hubble

[ChrisA90278]

"Nasa does not want to fix the Hubble as there budgets have been cut. They want to put the money for fixing the Hubble into something else."

By the time a typical mission launches you have already spend MOST of it's budget. Any time you see a mission cancelled, unless it is cancelled at a very early, pre-development stage then what you are seeing is 80% of the cost flushed down the toilet in an effort to save 20%.

As an engineer, I've seen this happen many, many times. One we were working on a system that was estimated to cost about $100M but turned out to be more like $115M. So after spending $100M of your tax dolars congress decided not to spend the extra $15 and told us the "trash it all". And they did.

Same here. the planning and hardware is complete. All the salary to the hundreds of people involved over several years is mostly already spent long ago. Cancelling the mission will save very little of the total mission budget.

Re:Real issue - Nasa does not want to fix Hubble

[Theory of Everything]

I am an astronomer, and I can tell you that, in most of our opinions, Adaptive Optics is a complete load of crap. A lot of money has gone into that technology for very little science return. The price per scientific paper for Adaptive Optics is far higher than for other technologies.

Yes, the technology can make images a bit sharper, but due to its intrinsic properties, results in those images being completely impossible to calibrate. Making a measurement is only 1% of science; 99% of the challenge is understanding the context of the measurement, its reliability, and uncertainties. Without the ability to calibrate the image, it is useless. With adaptive optics, there are image artifacts that vary in time and can mimic details for which you are searching. If you see a new point of light around the star you are imaging, is it really a distinct object, or just an artifact of the image?

Also, adaptive optics requires bright stars as guides, because the system must operate faster than the atmosphere varies (generally 1 kHz). Very little of the sky has a bright enough star nearby for this to be useful on many objects.

You can use lasers to make artificial guide stars. You still need an actual star for one stage of the correction that the laser isn't sensitive to (because it goes round-trip), but it can be fainter, and this opens much more of the sky. However, it's still far from complete sky coverage.

Finally, background light is higher for ground-based observatories. Hubble can still see fainter than ground telescopes because of this.

For versatility, large sky coverage, and faintness in high resolution imaging, you just can't beat going to space.

Other Systems at risk?

[yogibaer]

The risk to Atlantis is of course serious enough, but what about the risk to Hubble itself or to other systems (communication satellites, GPS etc.)? This can't be easily replaced and a "white spot" in GPS coverage e.g. in major shipping lane would be catastrophic. Does anyone know about scenarios calculations for this?

Last paragraph is rubbish

[Kupfernigk]

You don't understand the Theory of Evolution. There is NO "next logical step" for a species which develops intelligence, and there is NO reason why not colonising space makes us a "dead end branch". As the late, great Jay Gould has pointed out, the main form of life on Earth (by biomass and by effect on the planet) is now, and has been for a very long time, bacteria. Bacteria achieve great adaptability without intelligence. If we cannot achieve the same adaptability, then environmental changes may make us extinct. But the test of evolutionary success is simply continued, unthreatened existence, not some hypothetical extension of range. If we "nuke ourselves", we've failed. If we learn to live in our existing environment without making it unusable, and adapt to its changes, we've succeeded. The idea that we must colonise space to validate our existence is a religion, not science.

Before the troll mods start up, please let me say I'm not objecting to exploring the Solar System in the slightest (in fact I think it's far more useful than the LHC). I am pointing out that your justification makes no scientific sense.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[khallow]

If we learn to live in our existing environment without making it unusable, and adapt to its changes, we've succeeded.

The current environment is transitory. And eventually over geological time, it will change in a way that cannot be adapted to. Plus, it's worth noting that most species (including humans) that exist now do so precisely because they have repeatedly expanded their range.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[plasmacutter]

Living in better balance with our environment and within our resources will not save us from a space rock or plague, off-world colonies will, and that's my point.

The main evolutionary trait of human beings is technology, and we are in a unique position to do this, which would set us on the road to the eventually disentanglement of our survival with that of one small planet.

If we fail to do this, then a global catastrophe will eventually happen which outstrips our technology and render us extinct.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[Cally]

Living in better balance with our environment and within our resources will not save us from a space rock or plague, off-world colonies will,

No, it won't, because: physics.

If we fail to do this, then a global catastrophe will eventually happen which outstrips our technology and render us extinct.

Yep. Deal with it.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[grumbel]

An earth devastated by an asteroid is still a much more friendly place to live on then either Moon or Mars. Self sustaining off-world colonies won't happen for many many years to come.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[michrech]

Especially with *that* attitude!

An earth devastated by an asteroid is still a much more friendly place to live on then either Moon or Mars. Self sustaining off-world colonies won't happen for many many years to come.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[Benfea]

Perhaps he phrased it badly, but I think what he meant to say is that having humans on more than one planet enhances our survivability greatly, which [b]does[/b] affect us from the standpoint of evolution.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

Self sustaining off-world colonies won't happen for many many years to come.

"Then we must start at once!"

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[DingerX]

Yeah, but however transitory it is, it's far better suited to us than anything space has to offer. Seriously, any "changes over geological time" that occur are small change compared to the cost of terraforming. Or, put another way, it will take far less energy, logistics and ingenuity to maintain a human-habitable planet than to evolve one. Likewise, it will take far less genetic monkeying to keep our species compatible with this planet's environment than to adapt to that of another planet.

So, fine, seek to colonize other worlds, if that's what your religion says. But recognize that if we can't sustain our existence over Earthbound environmental changes, there's no way we can do it on another planet.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[silanea]

If we fail to do this, then a global catastrophe will eventually happen which outstrips our technology and render us extinct.

So?

Honestly I could not care less. Not trying to troll, I really don't see an issue here. Humans have been around for some 200,000 years. Nice, but that is not exactly a long time span. Dinosaurs were around for more than 160 million years - 160,000,000, you notice the difference? And they still vanished. Humanity as a whole is quite insignificant, one amongst an uncountable mass of life forms in this planet, outlived (by time of existence, not concurrency) by most other species.

Why does everyone believe that we should be destined to walk this universe forever? Sorry, folks, hate to break it to you: The odds of that are damningly slim.

Big deal. By my estimation one of the following will have occurred well before our earth evolves to a point where living conditions will not allow us to adapt anymore:

• We will have suffocated from our own toxins, fumes and trash.
• Global nuclear armageddon, triggered by either a russian fascist, a chinese fascist or an american retard.
• God proves his existence - by hitting the reset switch.

I am really surprised, and somewhat concerned here. Supposedly /.'s target group should predominantly consist of engineers, scientists and generally geeks and nerds - people who rely on common sense and logic to make a living. (Not counting those working for Microsoft or Sun. Those have somehow mastered the forbidden art of producing systematically structured chaos.)

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

If we "nuke ourselves", we've failed. If we learn to live in our existing environment without making it unusable, and adapt to its changes, we've succeeded. The idea that we must colonise space to validate our existence is a religion, not science.

You must admit that the latter makes the former far less likely. After all, bacteria has colonized the universe over billions of years.

Or, to put it more dramatically, If the Earth were destroyed tomorrow, bacteria would continue to thrive. We, however, would not.

And by the way, that's science.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[GargamelSpaceman]

The idea that we must colonise space to validate our existence is a religion

Great post.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[MrKaos]

Why does everyone believe that we should be destined to walk this universe forever?

Because we can ;-)

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[cowscows]

That's not a logically attitude, it's a negative and defeatist attitude.
The scripting language I used to to code a website last week will likely be obsolete in a decade or so, so I don't know why I even bothered writing it in the first place. I should probably have just saved myself the trouble and watched TV all day instead of spending a couple of hours writing in a doomed computer language.

A building can't realistically be expected to last forever, so why do we bother with structural engineering, or safety codes, or any of that. Living in any structure that requires more effort than just pushing together and crawling under a pile of sticks isn't worth the effort.

Well you're personally going to die in a geologically insignificant amount of time, so why would I even bother feeding myself or taking medicine when you I get sick? All I'm doing is delaying the inevitable.

One of the fundamentals of life is that tries to continue to exist, either through not dying or reproducing. You should not be surprised that humans generally have the same inclination. The fact that the world/universe is a dangerous place makes surviving rather difficult, especially over the long term. Your response to this challenge is apparently to declare it hopeless and ridicule anyone for even trying. There's no logic in that, you're just being lazy.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't understand this obsession of men seeking out extraterrestrial species...

There are only two answers possible you know :

There are some ET species, or there aren't !

If there are some, there's still again only two answers possible :

We're "advanced" compared to them, or they're "advanced" compared to us. If we're advanced compared to them, we don't need anything from them. If they're advanced compared to us, they'll find us primitive and won't need us for anything.

And I always wonder if we're the only idiots searching for "others" out there. Maybe they found us already, and we're not even interesting enough to make contact with...

Anyway, about the colonization... I'm really not an expert, and I'm not really into space-stuff, but one of the BBC Space documentaries covers this subject and I found it quiet interesting.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[TheGeniusIsOut]

We are a migratory species, our migration patterns are simply on longer cycles than seasonal ones. There exists no natural planetary body that will sustain life indefinitely, eventually we will have to move to a new world and terraform it or become extinct. The sooner we develop the technology the better we will be at it. If you are content to bury your head in the sand and leave the problem to later generations, then please do not reproduce and leave the resources to the innovators and explorers who seek to expand our horizons.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[moderatorrater]

You misunderstand life. His point is a valid one: if our existence depends on earth, then at some point our existence will end when earth changes enough that we can't adapt.

If we learn to live in our existing environment without making it unusable, and adapt to its changes, we've succeeded.

We've only succeeded in continuing our dependence on something that the fossil record show isn't dependable. Add into it our own lack of dependability and we've got a major problem.

The idea that we must colonise space to validate our existence is a religion, not science.

Not to validate, just to extend and guarantee. We've spread from Africa and put ourselves into every place and biome on the earth, making it so that a catastrophe would have to be global to destroy the species. The next step in making sure the species continues would be to make it so that even a global catastrophe wouldn't be able to destroy the human race.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[Medievalist]

The main evolutionary trait of human beings is technology,

I thought it was hubris.

Eh, to-may-to, to-mah-to...

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[vertinox]

You don't understand the Theory of Evolution. There is NO "next logical step" for a species which develops intelligence, and there is NO reason why not colonising space makes us a "dead end branch". As the late, great Jay Gould has pointed out, the main form of life on Earth (by biomass and by effect on the planet) is now, and has been for a very long time, bacteria. Bacteria achieve great adaptability without intelligence.

Eventually, even the bacteria will go extinct without a space program.

It won't be tomorrow, 100, 1000, or even 1,000,000 years from now, but if we are talking about evolution (the scale of hundreds of millions of years and even billions) something on a cosmic scale will eventually kill all life on earth.

Eventually earth will be hit by an object large enough to eliminate the atmosphere.

Eventually the sun will expand and consume earth.

Eventually the sun will die.

Eventually all the stars will die.

Eventually all matter will be consumed by black holes.

Eventually all the black holes will die.

(And I'm not listing all the other events that makes most of the universe unfriendly to life between now and then)

Unless there is some bacteria that can still exist in a universe after heat death, there is no future in evolution without intelligence.

Just saying, without intelligence, life is eventually doomed down the line.

If you take a view of natural selection is evolution, the universe tends to kill off life regardless its prior traits and that it takes intelligence to get past those "out of context" problems.

As they say... The dinosaurs died out because they didn't have a space program.

And I would wager eventually the only life to survive the universe will be intelligent life simply because everything else (including the bacteria) died to cosmic events.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[PhilHibbs]

Plus, it's worth noting that most species (including humans) that exist now do so precisely because they have repeatedly expanded their range.

However, when our ancestors were capable of adapting to survive the KT event, they were tiny little shrew-like creatures. And when our ancestors were capable of adapting to survive the big extinction 250M years ago, they were shrimps. In order to survive a global extinction level event such as a reeeeally big asteroid impact, we have to get off of this rock. In the long run, we as a species have already failed to survive because we are too specialised to quickly adapt to the inevitable forthcoming sudden, massive shift in climate that happens every few tens of millions of years. Evolution into higher life forms on a single planet is always a dead end because of this.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[Xenographic]

If you really want to argue against it, there are several events that are less survivable and more insurmountable:

* Heat death of the universe.
* Proton decay.

We don't even have a theoretical way to survive these events. Make all the colonies you want, but it'll be damn hard to survive without stars... or protons. The good part is that these will take an absurdly long time to take place, so we can certainly live it up in the mean time.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[sremick]

Humans have been around for some 200,000 years. Nice, but that is not exactly a long time span. Dinosaurs were around for more than 160 million years - 160,000,000, you notice the difference? And they still vanished.

The reason that dinosaurs survived so long was because they were too stupid to engineer their own extinction.

Apparently humans don't "suffer" from that issue.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[vertinox]

An earth devastated by an asteroid is still a much more friendly place to live on then either Moon or Mars. Self sustaining off-world colonies won't happen for many many years to come.

Unless it cracks the earth's mantel resulting in the loss of Earth's magnetic shield which makes earth just as useful as say mars in keeping its atmosphere protected from solar winds.

But it would take a very large object for that, but with space you never know.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[ChrisA90278]

It depends on the time scale. Yes we WILL be a dead end unless we leave the Earth but we have a billion years (more or less) before we are forced to leave. So if we explore space now or wait 10,000 years it makes little difference. On the cosmic scale 10,000 years is "nothing".

We will eventually learn to live on Earth in a sustainable, stable way.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[silanea]

That's not a logically attitude, it's a negative and defeatist attitude. [...]

Nope, it is not. I am quite an optimistic and cheerful person - depending on whether the subject merits one of those traits. If they don't, and the issue in question here does not as far as I'm concerned, I strive to take a pragmatist position, guided by logic and objectivity.

The scripting language I used to to code a website last week will likely be obsolete in a decade or so, so I don't know why I even bothered writing it in the first place.

That is defeatism. My position would be to use the language as long as it is widely supported and satisfies all requirements but drop it once something better comes around.

If I would deduct your position from your line of argument, you'd still be coding in Plankalkül, despite the fact that no-one but you (and possibly a few museums) has an interpreter for it any more.

A building can't realistically be expected to last forever, so why do we bother with structural engineering, or safety codes, or any of that.

You can engineer a building so that it withstands fire, earthquakes and hurricanes. That will allow you to live in it even if a small-scale disaster happens to strike it. This is sensible and doable. I have yet to see a house, though, that will survive the eruption of a volcano directly below it.

You see the fallacy in your examples? There are changes in our surroundings that we can adapt to, and there are changes that will eradicate us. Just like any other organism that we know. I just don't understand where this belief that humans are somehow special and have some natural right or obligation to prevail until the end of days comes from. We'll cease to exist someday. Too bad. Unless we happen to meet and befriend E. T. somewhere in the next few centuries no-one will miss us. Therefore it is my firm belief that we should scrap that colonise-the-Mars bullshit and clean up the mess down here first before ever considering to move somewhere else. What do you think would come out of a Mars colony comprised of people with today's screwed-up mindset? It'd take barely months before the first idiot declares themselves king of the castle, and all the human failures, shortcomings and plain stupidity that have caused and continue to fan all the problems in this world just start all over again.

Frankly, humanity in its current state does not deserve to survive.

One of the fundamentals of life is that tries to continue to exist, either through not dying or reproducing. You should not be surprised that humans generally have the same inclination. The fact that the world/universe is a dangerous place makes surviving rather difficult, especially over the long term. Your response to this challenge is apparently to declare it hopeless and ridicule anyone for even trying. There's no logic in that, you're just being lazy.

1. The survival of life itself does not imply that we'll be in for the ride. There are many far more adaptive and resilient species in this planet's ecosystem than us. And I'm not just talking about bacteria.
2. It is hopeless. If the meteors don't get us, the sun will, upon its death, with all probability wipe out this solar system, and even if we manage to escape to a more distant system the heat death of the universe will get us eventually. So instead of madly and mindlessly racing for the next best planet no matter what, we could just try to improve conditions here and enjoy the show while it lasts.

   Seriously: What would be lost if all humans died tomorrow? Would the universe freeze in awe? Nope. Would the rest of this planet even notice we're gone? Hardly, apart from those animals and plants we forced into dependency. And on the other hand, what would be so great about humanity still being around in 20 billion years? Hum, I don't know, we'd still be watching entertainment shows, killing each other over bullshit and causing massive ecological damage, I guess.

   On the whole we just don't matter that much to anyone but ourselves. And even there I have my doubts.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[khallow]

"Suitability", eh? We can see that even on Earth suitability isn't the only reason that people live in a place. For example, California is better suited to human habitation (better climate) than most of Canada, but we still have people living all over Canada. People routinely work in jobs that are unhealthy and dangerous. That indicates to me that there are other criteria than just suitability.

And given that you have access to a computer, you, no doubt, have seen the inside of a building which is our primary means of turning a relatively unsuitable Earth environment into a more suitable environment. This is another factor. We can change the environment to something more "suitable".

Now, there is a huge gulf between most Earth environments and space environments. Unless you're trying to survive in a pool of lava (where even protected lifespan can be measured in seconds), Earth environments, even the nasty ones like winter in Antarctica or the deep ocean are easier to survive in than the best space environments we know of (Summer on the lowest spot on Mars or the oceans of Europa). In terms of suitability, sure Earth environments have a big advantage. But as we see, we still can want to live there for other reasons (say, "religion" as you put) and we can adapt the environment to us or vice versa.

Unlike some others, I don't see converting the entire surfaces of planets and moons to a nice Earth environment as being all that desirable. While we often do try to convert the Earth environment to what might have been ancestral human environments (eg, making grass lawns which are like the African savanna), there are a lot of times when the modifications are made with an eye to being minimal either compatible with the existing environment or just to save money. Why terraform the Moon, complete with an Earth-density atmosphere, when you can build habitats and agriculture for many, many orders of magnitude less cost and waste?

As I see it, suitability is only one of many criteria for living and working in a place. And space environments are merely more difficult. At some point, assuming we survive that long, the desire to live in space will outweigh the cost of doing so. Here's a final observation. Once a self-sustaining population exists in space, we need no longer consider suitability since the suitability threshold would have been passed.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[silanea]

While I disagree, that was the most sensible answer so far. Seriously.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[khallow]

In the long run, we as a species have already failed to survive because we are too specialised to quickly adapt to the inevitable forthcoming sudden, massive shift in climate that happens every few tens of millions of years.

I strongly disagree with this. How are we specialized? Intelligence, best all around trait ever. Frankly, I don't see any of the major extinction events of the geological past being something the human race couldn't survive.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[danaris]

Frankly, I don't see any of the major extinction events of the geological past being something the human race couldn't survive.

I would generally tend to agree—however, it is very important to make the distinction between the human race and human civilization.

Dan Aris

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[HTH NE1]

An earth devastated by an asteroid is still a much more friendly place to live on then either Moon or Mars.

Indeed, Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids. In fact, it's cold as hell! And there's no one there to raise them if you did.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[HTH NE1]

If there are some [ET species], there's still again only two answers possible :

We're "advanced" compared to them, or they're "advanced" compared to us. If we're advanced compared to them, we don't need anything from them. If they're advanced compared to us, they'll find us primitive and won't need us for anything.

Yeah, history on Earth has shown it is not that simple. I'm sure we'll find something we want that a "less advanced" society might have. For an example, look at the interactions between European explorers and the native peoples of foreign lands like the Americas.

"We must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only upon animals such as the vanished bison and dodo, but also upon its own inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants, in the space of fifty years." -- H.G. Wells, The War of the Worlds, Preface

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[plasmacutter]

An earth devastated by an asteroid is still a much more friendly place to live on then either Moon or Mars. Self sustaining off-world colonies won't happen for many many years to come.

The actual act of devastation is what will cause extinction, not the after-effects.
According to geologists and paleontologists, we are living on an earth devastated by an asteroid.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[PhilHibbs]

I strongly disagree with this. How are we specialized? Intelligence, best all around trait ever. Frankly, I don't see any of the major extinction events of the geological past being something the human race couldn't survive.

Okay, lets say the Yellowstone National Park erupts and covers the entirety of North America in lava. Over the course of a year, the sky is rendered entirely opaque, and all plant life bigger than moss dies. How would our amazing intelligence cope with that?

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[khallow]

Okay, lets say the Yellowstone National Park erupts and covers the entirety of North America in lava. Over the course of a year, the sky is rendered entirely opaque, and all plant life bigger than moss dies. How would our amazing intelligence cope with that?

That's not analogous to an event that happened during Earth's past. The Siberian Traps are the nearest example, and they both are considerably smaller and happened over maybe tens of thousands to millions of years. But let's go with your example anyway. Anyone with a nuclear power plant would be able to survive this. For example, a breeding population in a nuclear sub or someone maintaining an underground, nuclear powered greenhouse in Europe or Asia. In fact, given that the oxygen level isn't likely to drop much below lethal levels since most animal life will die, you probably could still survive on fossil fuel burning.

Re:Last paragraph is rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

"Frankly, humanity in its current state does not deserve to survive."

Then frankly, I think suicide is your best option.

A possible shield

[Genda]

Since the trajectories of the debris will lie in a relatively narrow plane, it should be possible to device a barrier made of a plastic bag, shaped like a tube (open at both ends perpendicular to the plane of flying debris), and when inflated would make a tube like structure 6 inches thick and just slightly longer than the space shuttle and the Hubble combined. Fill the plastic cylinder full of water. The water freezes harder than steel. You now have an excellent barrier from the debris cloud while you work on Hubble. Now lift Hubble up a few thousand miles to get it out of harms way.

After, you can move water to the ISS for safe keeping. I'm guessing they can put an extra couple thousand gallons to use for anything from experimentation and raising space crops to providing water for the first space hotel. Not to mention if that water has minerals in it, it can be used for everything from dietary supplementation to an emergency shield against high energy solar emissions.

Re:A possible shield

[evanbd]

You can replace the tube with a wall; the debris is coming from a known direction. Doing that produces a wall roughly 125 feet by 60 feet by 6 inches. That's around 100,000 kg. The Shuttle can lift just shy of a quarter of that to low Earth orbit. Also, hypervelocity collisions don't behave like you think they do -- at the least you'd need a spall shield inside the ice shield; you probably need far more than that.

Sorry, the brute force approach to impact shielding just doesn't work when random bits of plumbing are moving at speeds comparable to or faster than kinetic anti-tank rounds. You need a more sophisticated approach like a Whipple shield, and for something the size of the Shuttle even that will be quite heavy.

Re:A possible shield

[Zhiroc]

"Since the trajectories of the debris will lie in a relatively narrow plane"... I'm not sure this is true. This diagram from NASA suggests the cloud is moving in all directions. Remember, only the geo-stationary satellites are required to have equatorial orbits. Ground-sensing ones need to have inclined orbits, and some are even polar (particularly military).

Re:A possible shield

[xaositects]

a youtube video as well.

Re:A possible shield

[Blakey Rat]

Great plan, but where does the water come from? Water's freakin' heavy, and your shield would require (literally) tons of it. Also, assuming we could get that much water into orbit, the shuttle vulnerable while your shield is filling-up, so they're still taking the risk for a significant portion of the mission.

Re:Well... I guess we should just stay out of spac

[jrationalk]

"It" wouldn't work if the people weren't so susceptible to shock based mind control. Do you remember the introduction to high school physics?

Lasers?

[mhalagan]

I don't know the level of accuracy which we can track all the debris, or the accuracy which we could fire a laser at a target moving that fast. Would it be possible for us to use lasers to knock the debris out of earth's orbit?

Re:Lasers?

[Anonymous Coward]

The trick is getting the sharks pointed in the right direction.

How is this going to affect The Hubble?

[Big Hairy Ian]

I mean 2 objects collided in a 400Km orbit the Hubble orbits at 750km any debris will not have picked up enough velocity to get anywhere near the Hubble. The only danger to the space shuttle is going up there and coming back. Bearing in mind the impact resulted in 2 clouds of debris both of which have the same basic orbital dynamics as the original satelites i.e. we know where they are so fly the f*** around them

Re:How is this going to affect The Hubble?

[Zhiroc]

The collision happened at almost a right angle (see this diagram). As I understand it, the two satellites basically exploded into debris. While the center of mass of the cloud is mostly following a new trajectory based on the previous orbits, this cloud is probably expanding quickly in many directions. Many pieces were probably kicked out of the mostly circular orbits into highly elliptical ones, and therefore, could have apogees much higher than their original orbit.

Re:How is this going to affect The Hubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Get you facts strait, the collision happened at 789 km not 400 km.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision

Hubble flies at around 559 km.

The debris will start to spread out and decay in the next few months. So some of it it might end up at altitudes comparable to Hubble's

Re:How is this going to affect The Hubble?

[daemonburrito]

As sibling comment says, it was 789km.

A 950kg object struck a 560kg object at 11.7km/s (see hypervelocity). All the pieces have new orbits.

Here's some pretty pretty animation.

Surely ?

[daveime]

Surely now that the two satellites have collided and fallen into Siberia, there are two LESS pieces of junk floating around in the atmosphere ?

Wouldn't that make the risk of collision with the Hubble LESS likely ?

Re:Surely ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The satellites have collided above Siberia. They did not fall.
A collision between 2 satellites creates 2 clouds of several thousand pieces in orbit.

So many more pieces in far less well known orbits adds up to greater collision-risk for Hubble

Re:Surely ?

[daveime]

Finally, I get to say it :-)

Whoooooosh

Re:Surely ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, you only get to say Whoosh if it was a GOOD joke. Your was... wait, that was supposed to be a joke? Which part was supposed to be funny?

Except that

[Kupfernigk]

Will the inhabitants of those "off-world colonies" survive? We are far less likely to adapt to their conditions. The change of getting wiped out before sustainability is reached is rather high (look at the history of the colonisation of the Americas). Meanwhile, the amount of energy it takes to put even small payloads into orbit is enormous. We could easily reduce our planet to below sustainability in trying to create colonies, all of which would then fail for lack of resources. We've just done this to our economy by trying to make it expand too fast, so we have a track record.

Research on Earth into dealing with external threats such as infalling asteroids or comets, dealing with diseases, dealing with our own inbuilt tendency to commit genocide, is far cheaper and more likely to pay dividends. Let's protect ourselves from disease and space rocks first, then we will be demonstrating our adaptability and survival skills. Running for the hills is monkey behavior, dealing with the predators may be what made us human in the first place. After all, we could realistically have a basic comet and asteroid shield by 2030.

I repeat: the idea of space colonies is currently not even science fiction, it's religion. Which was my original point.

Re:Except that

[MrKaos]

5) we may as well just nuke it all now if we don't establish extra-terrestrial colonies. Colonization of space is the next logical step for a species which develops intelligence, and if we don't continue down that path we are a dead-end branch waiting to be pruned from the tree of life.

I am pointing out that your justification makes no scientific sense....I repeat: the idea of space colonies is currently not even science fiction, it's religion. Which was my original point.

With respect, while you make some valid point's I think it's appropriate to point out that the human race has historically judged itself by it's rate of expansion. The size of the human race being instrumental to it's capacity to build the infrastructure of a successful civilisation, where the rule of law is a core building block to a stable society. Building a stable expanding civilisation has relied on the availability of cheap energy and clearly we are coming to the end of that era.

By staying on Earth your premise asks us "how do we continue to grow as a race AND decrease our energy/resource consumption? - to be sure a challenge that has to be met - but one that may be significantly more challenging than creating space colonies if you are considering the social changes required to achieve ZPG.

Failing to achieve the goal of building a sustainable society means even maintaining an existing population, currently about 7 billion, becomes a serious challenge or humanity goes into population decline. Both of those scenarios pose serious issues. One only has to look at the issues arising in Russia right now due to it's population being in decline, extrapolate that worldwide and effectively you *are* ending, maybe not humanity, but certainly this civilisation. With the end of this civilisation you certainly will loose the capacity to do many things.

There *has* to be a limit to how many people the earth can support before our society confronts this issue. Inevitably the colonisation of space holds the key to the continued expansion of our society, as flawed as it is. Maybe it's not scientific, but it certainly *is* logical.

The only reason America got to the moon in the first place was because Kennedy got behind the idea, the people got behind Kennedy. No one was talking about science, science is mankind's tool - it's the imagination and the idea that's important. Let me remind you of these word's:

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

It was the vision that inspired people and science and engineering were the tools used to beat the USSR to the moon, until it became a religion. So when should space colonies be considered? When the earth sustains two, three times the existing population? 14 Billion, 21 billion people?

Doing everything you have said is a necessity for the survival of the human race, but it doesn't mean we can't do all of those things simultaneously. I posit that moving infrastructure to space a significant step to achieving the goals you stated anyway. Colonising space sooner rather than later might be the best thing we can do to maintain biodiversity on earth because humanity will continue to consume resources. For now, colonisation of space is just an idea's whose time is yet to come and even if it is religious, it doesn't mean it's not important.

When people are faced with the inevitability of a challenge, perhaps 'one we are unable to postpone' (to paraphrase Kennedy) it might be that kind of fervour that we need to ensure society, and not just humanity, survives.

Re:Except that

[Chabil Ha']

Will the inhabitants of those "off-world colonies" survive? We are far less likely to adapt to their conditions.

Exactly. We have spent the last several millennium finding our own balance, a genetic war if you will, against pathogens and other animals to establish our dominance in this sphere. There is no reason to suppose that we will conquer another world with ease even if it is filled with 'lesser' forms of life.

Re:Except that

[Anonymous Coward]

"We could easily reduce our planet to below sustainability in trying to create colonies, all of which would then fail for lack of resources."

What? No, that's silly. Our space programs are limited by the price in human terms (monetary expense due to specialized labor costs), not in life-sustaining resources. And that monetary cost itself isn't even that high - consider NASA's budget as a percent of the US budget, or as a percent of the world budget.

To get to the point where our space programs threaten our resource base, we'd have to have essentially already solved all the science problems, such that we're actually sending too much food up to colonists - we'd have to have somehow found a way to get millions of colonists out there for cheap without having figured out a way to feed them. But even then, we wouldn't destroy the planetary human life sustainability, we'd just lose the colonies, and maybe bankrupt a nation.

It seems to me that you're conflating colonization with Malthusian population cycles. But that doesn't have *global* impact even with today's system of nations; we can't even get to the global carrying capacity yet, due to the logistics of where people are vs where the food-producing places are; a mob of starving Indians aren't going to descend upon North America.

Re:Except that

[ricree]

In the long term, it is clear that we will need space colonization to survive as a species. The thing to remember, though, is that the long term here is really really long. The sort of threats that colonization would defend us from are the sorts that will not likely come for many centuries or even many millenia. So while I agree with those who say that off world colonization must someday be a reality, it does not take precedence over the many other issues that we need to conquer to succeed as a species.

I also tend to have my own thoughts on what is the best way to proceed with the idea of an off world human presence. Many people use this goal to justify the manned space program, and while it has uses, I don't think that the current manned space program will be able to bridge the gap to real sustainable colonies for us.

I believe that we should be devoting more time and resources towards the goal automated fabrication in space. It's clear that the one hurdle that we will never truly escape is the massive energy cost to put something into orbit. Given this, it is essential that we learn how to build as much as possible off the surface of earth where we don't have to deal with the huge launch costs.

Obviously, this isn't something that we can do overnight. We don't have that sort of automation yet on Earth, much less the technology to do it in space, but it will be necessary if we want to do any sorts of large scale off world construction.

If the US really wants to set a meaningful goal for the space program, I think that it should ditch the talk of human missions to Mars and other similarly pointless goals, and set a strong but realistic goal towards achieving off world production. We should decide that by 2030, for example, we should be able to take the raw materials off of an asteroid, refine it into high grade metal or some similar material, and shape it into simple but useful forms.

This would greatly move us towards space colonization, and would also provide a lot of research into automated production that could be used with great benefit on Earth.

Re:Except that

[HTH NE1]

Suddenly, my eyes were attracted to the immense flock of black birds that hovered directly below me. They circled to the ground, and there before my eyes, stark and silent, lay the Humans, with the hungry birds pecking and tearing pink shreds of flesh from their dead bodies. Later when their bodies were examined in laboratories, it was found that they were killed by the putrefactive and disease bacteria against which their systems were unprepared... slain after all our defenses had failed, by the humblest thing that the Eternal, in His wisdom, has put upon this planet Mars.

Re:Except that

[RealGrouchy]

(look at the history of the colonisation of the Americas).

Yeah, that never worked, did it?

- RG>

Superman

[Grapedrink]

The real scape goat here is superman. If only superman would stop putting all those missiles in the way, we would not have this problem. And don't get me started about all those chunks of his tacky colored planet. Always blaming general zod, some sort of cosmic event, or something and never taking real responsibility. Don't litter.

Anyway, I think it's time we ask him to clean his room so to speak. If he can't do it, I guess plan b is some sort of friggin gundam laser.

simple

[Anonymous Coward]

This is so simple to solve, you just need to send a ship up there with a projectile weapon to shoot the big pieces into smaller pieces and then shoot those pieces into even smaller pieces then when you shoot those they completely disappear! Just watch out for the UFO because it shoots back.

Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Just nuke the orbit clean.

freeman in space with gravity gun

[Caue]

Just give him the gravity gun and let him do the job, while alyx kills those damn black headcrabs.

I hate those fuckers. That screech they do before attacking scares the living shit out of me.

Orbital debris specialist

[tjinkerson]

I like the idea of someone going in to the space industry and ending up as the orbital debris specialist. It's kind of what happened to my career!

Easier to hide

[witherstaff]

Don't forget that policies are in place to not allow the media to show flag draped caskets. Seeing a number of dead soldiers is one thing, actually seeing the body count would be a much stronger reaction.

Can't hide a shuttle loss so well.

Solution?

[Gunnut1124]

Why not launch a mass of adhesive into the old satellite's orbit? I'm thinking something like rubber cement for space.

The better part of the debris field is along the same orbital corridor, so the orbit of the cleanup "goo ball" (or whatever you want to call it) could be made to cover the better part of that corridor over and over...

I recognize that it'd be expensive, and that the maths behind orbit-after-impact would be tough, but it seems that if you are going relatively the same speed and direction as the original satellites, (so you'd need two "goo balls") you'd only have impacts with the forces imparted during the original collision, not the km/sec velocities from crossing orbits.

Also, the idea of goo balls being used to clean up space is my IP and I hereby demand compensation if said idea is ever used...

The space debris problem

[Cassander]

(5) just abandoning the whole outer space game anyhow and using a vast fiber optic ring on the surface for communication needs

The real problem here is that we're wasting *vast* amounts of orbital space with competing projects that don't share information with each other. There's more than plenty of room for *one* satellite network. But every little war-happy industrialized nation and every communications company and mapping company, etc., needs their own personal network clogging the sky.

Until we, as a species, get a little better at this "cooperation" thing and stop with the in-fighting, the debris field is just going to get worse and make space exploration difficult. (That might even be a good thing for any neighbors we might have.)

Sadly, I don't foresee this happening any time soon.

No hypocrisy at all

[Shivetya]

1. NASA has a limited number of astronauts.

2. NASA has a limited number of shuttles.

3. The public has very little stomach for "yet another NASA accident"

4. There are far too many in Congress who see the NASA manned program as a waste of money (in other words that money could buy pools and libraries named after Congressmen!)

5. Comparing any item to Iraq expenditures does not bolster your argument, if anything a parrot would suffice.

Why not compare it to the fact we are willing to lose nearly FORTY THOUSAND people to vehicle deaths. The number of soldiers we lose in Iraq while deplorable by any count is minuscule compared to any other war of that scale let alone the deaths at home from stuff that should not happen in the first place.

Re:No hypocrisy at all

[OrugTor]

3. The public has very little stomach for "yet another NASA accident" NASA has managed expectations the way airlines do. They take the line that they will do everything that can be done to safeguard the lives of the astronauts, including not sending them up. What is needed is an agressive posture that accepts the inherent high-risk nature of orbital operations and focuses on getting missions done. It's pathetic to spend billions on training and equipping risk-takers as astronauts only to ground them when the risk rises to some arbitrary level labeled "unacceptable".

Re:No hypocrisy at all

[sbmorphe]

Problem Solved:

1. NASA has a limited number of astronauts.

Send congressmen instead.

2. NASA has a limited number of shuttles.

They're being retired anyway.

3. The public has very little stomach for "yet another NASA accident"

It's not going to ruin my dinner if seven congressmen buy the farm.

4. There are far too many in Congress who see the NASA manned program as a waste of money (in other words that money could buy pools and libraries named after Congressmen!)

There will be seven less if something happens.

5. Comparing any item to Iraq expenditures does not bolster your argument, if anything a parrot would suffice.

Why not compare it to the fact we are willing to lose nearly FORTY THOUSAND people to vehicle deaths. The number of soldiers we lose in Iraq while deplorable by any count is minuscule compared to any other war of that scale let alone the deaths at home from stuff that should not happen in the first place.

Re:No hypocrisy at all

[Anonymous Coward]

... and millions and millions to masturbation!!! Won't someone think of the potential children?

We have to stop...

[csoto]

Megatron and his dastardly Decepticons!

Spreading the seeds

[Cassander]

The idea that we must colonise space to validate our existence is a religion, not science.

The way I look at it, we are the reproductive system for the entire biosphere. If we don't colonize other planets around different stars (let alone other rocks around this one) then all of Gaia* has failed, not just one little species.

* Please note I do not actually personify "Gaia", I just use it as a convenient and poetic label for the entire interconnected biosphere.

Re:Spreading the seeds

[Firethorn]

The way I look at it, we are the reproductive system for the entire biosphere.

You know, I think this is a very apt comparison.

Like reproducive organs, especially the testes mammals, we enact extensive changes on the whole planet; not all of which are beneficial. Yet, we're the one big hope for reproduction; so almost ANYTHING is worth it. If we do relocated, odds are we'll take a big chunk of the rest of the biosphere with us.

After that, it breaks down a bit; Gaia is neither male or female. ;)

Re:Spreading the seeds

[10Neon]

After that, it breaks down a bit; Gaia is neither male or female. ;)

It's a slightly anthropocentric view to assume that all successful reproduction in the world (and universe) is sexual, don't you think?

Why ?

[smoker2]

Take a look at this image and tell me the problem is really that much worse.

Re:Why ?

[Kentari]

That image only contains the trajectories of 20-something large fragments, not the 20000+ smaller ones which they are still charting.

Re:Why ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Debris not to scale"

LHC

[Xelios]

Perhaps NASA could work with the LHC to produce a small black hole and put it in orbit. It might cause a problem later but who cares? It gets rid of the problem now, and that's all that matters amirite?

Bruce Willis would go

[hardaker]

Does anyone else worry about the day that some big asteroid is heading for earth? Then earthlings actually band together for once and reach consensus about firing a nuke toward the planet and all the scientists agree it'll work. But then it hits something in orbit as it heads out because all the launch windows are so complex just due to the stuff we've put up there?

I am hoping that ...

[WindBourne]

Russia and Iridium sue each other. Or perhaps one of the other sat owners sue them both (slim chance of that one). Either would cause other sat owners to re-think about just scrapping their sats. That would also lead to a new industry that would almost certainly be picked up by private enterprise (a sat de-orbit tug).

Totally sux if we lose the hubble mission. I wonder if it is possible to develop a tug to bring it down and up, or one that could remotely do the job (that I really doubt).

I seem to recall....

[Anonymous Coward]

... that the chance of the astronauts being able to successfully land on the moon and return home back when they first did it was not particularly stellar... those guys risked their lives and made history.

Whatever happened to the brave explorers that NASA used to be comprised of?

Best way to de militarize space

[gelfling]

Is to clutter it up with so much debris that no one can launch a thing. In fact it's the best way to end all space flights altogether.

Re:Abandon Space Game

[GargamelSpaceman]

Abandonment might be a good idea. If the junk up there gets too thick maybe space is just no longer possible without massive shields. It may be already. They thought 1/185 chance of impact was acceptable!!!??? How does the Hubble itself avoid getting shreded in less than a year then unless the junk is mostly on the way to and back from the hubble

If we abandon human spaceflight since the massive shields necessary to do this safely make it uneconomical/impossible given current technology, then we can spend the money on explorative probes and experiments, and maybe even alternative forms ( other than rockets ) of attaining orbit which might have the potential to carry the necessary massive shields.

Let it die!

[Canazza]

Pour more money into getting This one Right!

Re:Let it die!

[compro01]

That thing will only do the infrared and some visual range stuff. It won't have some of the stuff Hubble does, like UV, which a ground telescope can't do.

more power!

[r00t]

You have to turn the debris to gas.

A laser really is the best idea.

Calculating the odds

[jbatista]

even before the collision, the risk of an impact was 1 in 185

It's expectable that the risk of impact increases with mission duration. Therefore, how exactly is the risk of an impact measured this way?

"1 in 185" of what?

1 out of 185 two-week (for example) missions will yield one collision (on average)?

1 out of 185 orbits will yield a collision?

What else?

Sigh.

[Jonah Bomber]

Stupid Russians.

NASA Conspiracy

[Jedi Holocron]

*Tin Foil Hat*

So, what you're saying is that NASA intentionally caused the collision so that the resulting debris would force them to cancel the Hubble Mission--which they didn't really want to do in the first place.

Nifty.

*/Tin Foil Hat*

Fire up the starwars weapons

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like a perfect opportunity to test all those starwars weapons for target practicing. Or test the spacecraft repellent shield prototypes. Or just get up there a space version of iRobot vacuum cleaner. Or a nanotech space junk collector spiderweb with space junk digesting spider robots. Or train unemployed workers to be independent space recycling associates as part of the stimulus program. The sky is the limit.

Compensation?

[sbmorphe]

So, lets assume that the US scrubs the Atlantis mission. Lets also assume that the mission would have been a go had the two satellites not collided?. If scrubbing the mission seals Hubble's fate, can the US go after Russia for compensation in an international court? After all, it was their out of control satellite that caused this particular mess. (Note that Russia's track record on orbital mission end-of-life has been less than stellar (pun intended)).

Do you know how that much water weighs?

[hellfire]

If you want something to cover the length (122.17 ft) and wingspan (78.06 ft) of the shuttle (I'm assuming the tube like device will have a squarish face to it) enough water to fill a 6 inch sheet would be 4768.2951 cubic feet of water! A gallon is .133680555 cubic feet, so that's 35,669.3259 gallons! A gallon of water is 8.33 pounds! That results in 297125.484 lbs. You want to add nearly 150 tons to the shuttle lift off? The shuttle only weighs 120 already! Sure, I'm not including for the fact that water expands when it freezes, but it's not like I can take a keg of water into space and expand it into a 125x80 foot shield.

And if the shield gets hit by something hard enough, it will shatter into shards that don't melt, and become just as deadly at the debris.

And how do you fill a tube like that without having the water instafreeze? Would your pump hoses not freeze? Would the water not freeze in the tube? Do you expect to keep the tube heated until the water is frozen, and if so how do you do that?

Are my calculations off or did you get modded up even a little for a completely crazy idea?

Let's clean up

[a-zA-Z0-9$_. !*'(),x]

Since a lot of nice services come from low-level satellites, like Hubble and Iridium, why not a multi-nation effort to clean space up?
Maybe an aerogel to slow small stuff, maybe strong magnets to drag metal down, maybe a smart satellite with a laser to zap stuff on the front, causing slowing, maybe ...
The sooner we get started, the more debris can be cleaned.
Question: If NASA tracks everything, why no warning of the Iridium/Kosmos impact? Iridium, at least, could have steered away.

I don't get it.

[Herby Sagues]

Repairing the Hubble makes absolutely no sense. The cost of building a telescope can be divided in the following way: 1) research 2) design 3) construction 4) launch 5) management and maintenance 6) training and facility construction If a new, identical hubble was built and launched to replace the existing one, 1, 2, 5 and 6 would be effecively zero. 4 would be much cheaper than the current repair mission, since it can be launched with an unmanned mission at much lower cost than a shuttle mission. As for 3, actual manufacturing cost of a second telescope is quite minor compared to the rest of the Hubble project. Yes, the mirror is expensive, but the mirror in the Hubble is already flawled and despite is fixes the results have been somewhat worse than they would have been with a perfect main mirror. In fact, if there was the option of building a new mirror at the same cost as the original, and swapping it at low cost, it would have been done without much consideration. So the mirror manufacturing cost could be dismissed as part of a reasonable upgrade. Building the rest of the telescope would be relatively inexpensive, I'm pretty sure it would be much minor than the difference between an unmanned launch and a shuttle repair mission. It is actually designing the parts and building the manufacturing machinery that's expensive an that's already built. In fact, most parts are already in stock. Building the original telescope was enormously expensive, but a second identical scope would cost just a minor fraction. Minor enhancements could be done that do not affect the general design but reduce cost and weight and increase reliability. Instead, we opt for sending astronauts in an extremely dangerous mission to partially fix a telescope that's aging beyond hope. COst will be definitely higher, risk is significant (including risk to human life) and results will be definitely worse. Doesn't anyone see what's wrong with this plan? I hope the debris issue finally kills this mission and the money is better spent in a new telescope (though so much money has already been spent in this mission that I find it unlikely).

No giros: call ESA

[Zoxed]

> Thats why every delay to this service mission is so critical - if another couple of gyros go, it won't even be able to orient itself well enough to allow the astronauts to get up close.

I am not sure how, nor if it could apply to Hubble, but ERS-2 has been flying giroless for some time now.

Re:No giros: call ESA

[FTWinston]

Hmm, I suspect it doesn't require the same rotational accuracy as hubble. Also, its an earth observer, so it just points at earth, hubble has to be able to rotate to any part of the sky.
Even if it were possible for hubble to operate in a gyro-less state, its extremely unlikely that it could be converted to one in-situ.

Unsurprising

[Citizen of Earth]

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. I made a bet two years ago with a friend that the Hubble repair will not happen before the end of 2009 (if ever) and my money is looking pretty safe. The premise of my wager is that the Americans have wussed out of space exploration, so we can count them out. We'll have to rely on the Chinese, who put the glory of the empire over the welfare of its citizens, for future space exploration.