Slashdot Mirror


Satellite Debris Forces ISS Crew Into Rescue Craft

Muad'Dave writes "CNN is reporting that the crew of the International Space Station was forced to take refuge from a possible collision of the ISS with a piece of space debris Thursday. From the article: 'Floating debris from a satellite forced the crew of the international space station to retreat to a safety capsule Thursday, according to a NASA news release. .. The debris was too close for the space station to move out of the way, so the station's three crew members were temporarily evacuated to a the station's Soyuz TMA-13 capsule, NASA said.'" Update: 03/12 18:42 GMT by T : The original story incorrectly said the ISS had 18 crew members. Luckily for the three in the Soyuz, that was a mistake.

171 comments

  1. Lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is just another reason to invest in laser defenses. Preferably sharks with fricken' lasers on their heads.

    1. Re:Lasers by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why didn't they just reverse the polarity on the shields? Do I have to think of everything myself?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Lasers by inerlogic · · Score: 5, Funny

      can't run the shields and the transporter at the same time.....

      deflector dish must've been tied up by those assholes in stellar cartography.....

      they're always tyin that MFin deflector dish up.....

    3. Re:Lasers by Deag · · Score: 4, Funny

      well they probably still have that golf club for the publicity stunt a while back, so they should send one guy out on space walk and have him start swinging.

    4. Re:Lasers by vux984 · · Score: 2, Informative

      FTFA The space station is orbiting at 17,500mph. The debris is moving at 19,800mph. Assuming they are an precisely the same orbit, the debris is still moving at least 2,300mph relative to the station. (And worst case some 35,000mph...)

      You might want to rethink trying to hit it with a golf club.

    5. Re:Lasers by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Funny

      An excellent plan, sir, with just 2 major drawbacks: (1) We don't have any shields, and (2) we don't have a any shields. I realize this is technically just one drawback, but I thought it was so important it was worth mentioning twice.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    6. Re:Lasers by mrdoogee · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, a hockey stick would work much better.

    7. Re:Lasers by Plunky · · Score: 5, Funny

      Gee, imagine if every time something was a teensy bit difficult we didn't even try..

    8. Re:Lasers by inerlogic · · Score: 1

      oooo good play with the RD reference....

    9. Re:Lasers by gnick · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that they couldn't figure out where the debris was headed - It missed the ISS by almost 3 miles. Whoever was tasked with knocking the thing down would have to have really good eyes to see the thing incoming and be able to throw that golf club really accurately.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    10. Re:Lasers by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      Throw? Son, they were suppose to tee off. FORE!

    11. Re:Lasers by Ced_Ex · · Score: 2, Funny

      The deflector dish was jammed... strawberry flavour I think.

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    12. Re:Lasers by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      You might want to rethink trying to hit it with a golf club.

      Yeah, a hockey stick would work much better.

      Happy Gilmore, is that you?

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    13. Re:Lasers by Sabathius · · Score: 1

      Or...hit the debris with an inverse-tachyon pulse from the primary array! Yeah, that's the ticket.

    14. Re:Lasers by Scragglykat · · Score: 1

      Yeah, polarize the hull or something...

    15. Re:Lasers by SBrach · · Score: 1

      NO! Raspberry!!!

    16. Re:Lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My meta-mod comments today were all +5's. What's the point in that?

    17. Re:Lasers by PsyciatricHelp · · Score: 1

      "There is only one man who would dare give me the Raspberry."

    18. Re:Lasers by Gilmoure · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, I'm home sick today.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    19. Re:Lasers by Neanderthal+Ninny · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The USSR had Polyus, which never made it to orbit, which had a self-defense cannon and a blinding laser. http://www.astronautix.com/craft/polyus.htm
      However if don't incinerate the target, then you are left with more debris that you may run into. They need a space "refuse" service which will remove
      debris, old satellites, and other stuff. Maybe all space faring countries can contribute to an fund that will allow an creation of this organization so that some private or public organization will do this job.

    20. Re:Lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTFA The space station is orbiting at 17,500mph. The debris is moving at 19,800mph. Assuming they are an precisely the same orbit, the debris is still moving at least 2,300mph relative to the station. (And worst case some 35,000mph...)

      You might want to rethink trying to hit it with a golf club.

      Different velocities guarantee that they are not in precisely the same orbit, because your velocity determines your orbit. They're going to meet where their orbits intersect.

      That said, you're right that the relative velocities would still be insanely high.

    21. Re:Lasers by Shark · · Score: 1

      I resemble that remark.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    22. Re:Lasers by ObitMan · · Score: 1

      there was a tv show sorta based on your suggestion
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078681/

      --
      Who run Barter Town?
    23. Re:Lasers by jabithew · · Score: 1

      An excellent suggestion sir, with just two small drawbacks...

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    24. Re:Lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on The ISS supervised by Americans... You'd need a baseball bat and a good swing!!! :cP

  2. Soyuz is invincible. by Ash-Fox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I swear, that Soyuz module will never die, considering how old it is.

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    1. Re:Soyuz is invincible. by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      When I first heard about this, all I could think was, "what happens if the space debris hits the Soyuz?"

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    2. Re:Soyuz is invincible. by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Cleaning up all the junk in orbit suddenly becomes an "action item". But the Soyuz is a much smaller, much sturdier target.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:Soyuz is invincible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      If it hits the Soyuz, you just exit the module and seal the airlock. On the other hand, if you're on the far side of the station and it puts a hole in that much larger target, you're in a somewhat more precarious predicament.

      Additionally, as the Soyuz is intended to return to earth, with all the stresses and such involved in that, it can probably withstand an impact better than the much less robust station.

    4. Re:Soyuz is invincible. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Apparently by your criteria I will never die because I age~

      I like that line of thinking.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Soyuz is invincible. by Trent+Hawkins · · Score: 1

      I swear, that Soyuz module will never die, considering how old it is.

      Soyuz nerushimy respublik svobodnykh
      Splotila naveki velikaya Rus'...
      :-)

    6. Re:Soyuz is invincible. by Chyeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sturdy or not, objects hitting you while going a couple of thousand miles per hour (relative to your own speed) tend to leave a lasting (if not final) impression.

    7. Re:Soyuz is invincible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps this brings up the bigger question: can ISS crews respond on slashdot, to let us know if something like that happened, and if they could, would they then be modded as flamebait? (That is a terrible, terrible joke. I do apologize.)

    8. Re:Soyuz is invincible. by gnick · · Score: 1

      I'd like to just see them stop creating so much space debris - I'm still pretty pissed over the Chinese blowing up their sat and leaving junk in a useful orbit...

      OK - The next person to kick a toaster out the airlock gets a month in the brig. Sorry, that's the way it has to be.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    9. Re:Soyuz is invincible. by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      I'd like to just see them stop creating so much space debris - I'm still pretty pissed over the Chinese blowing up their sat and leaving junk in a useful orbit...

      Perhaps it was done to hamper the space efforts of other countries.

    10. Re:Soyuz is invincible. by shadowbearer · · Score: 5, Interesting

        According to an article I just read*, that piece of junk was estimated to be about five inches in diameter and traveling at a relative velocity (to the ISS) of about 22,000 mph. That's almost ten kilometers a second**.

        If that had hit the Soyuz, it would have went in one side and out the other likely without even slowing down much, vaporizing a significant chunk of the hull - think white-hot metal shrapnel and shredded astronauts.

        Look at what happens to an armored tank when a depleted uranium shell hits it at a much slower velocity. At the velocities we're talking about here, even a pebble can cause a lot of destruction; a five inch piece of debris likely weighing at least a kg has an effect like a large artillery shell. Remember the flake of paint that put an inch diameter pit into the shuttle's windshield all those years ago?

        The only effective armor against something like this is a meter or so of rock.

      * http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2009-03-12-space-station_N.htm

      **Google: 22000 mph in meters per second = 9834.88 meters per second.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    11. Re:Soyuz is invincible. by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Ooh, a directional pipe bomb sat, set up to poison LEO. That would suck.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    12. Re:Soyuz is invincible. by rlseaman · · Score: 1

      If that had hit the Soyuz, it would have went in one side and out the other likely without even slowing down much, vaporizing a significant chunk of the hull - think white-hot metal shrapnel and shredded astronauts.

      It wouldn't have been a good situation, but the design of the Soyuz actually provides some extra protection depending on its orientation with respect to the incoming object:

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Soyus_craft_on_Display_at_the_Kennedy_Space_Center.jpg

      They would presumably have been sitting in the descent module, sandwiched between the orbital module (docked to the space station) and the service module (with the solar panels). Oriented the long axis along the crossing orbit and the debris would have to traverse one or the other. It wouldn't be good to shred either the airlock or the retrorockets, but what are you gonna do?

      And of course the space station itself could provide cover for the Soyuz. It would be nice if for once one of these reports actually described the full situation, orientation of the spacecraft relative to the orbiting debris, etc., not just the sensational version...Cosmonauts Cower in Soyuz! News at 11!

    13. Re:Soyuz is invincible. by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Ya visu ochen interesyenya devoschku!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    14. Re:Soyuz is invincible. by CXI · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe the relative velocity was 2,300mph, not that it would matter much either way if it hit.

    15. Re:Soyuz is invincible. by shadowbearer · · Score: 2, Interesting

        Considering the size/mass and velocity of this object - and I agree it'd be nice to have more info :) - I doubt the orientation would have made much difference.

        The other modules would have absorbed some of the kinetic energy - perhaps all of it if the object , whatever it was, was fragile enough to have disintegrated when it hit them. But if it was a very solid piece - like, say, a fuel pump - it probably would go completely thru them, too.

        Even with the modules on either side that still leaves a lot of open sky :(

        It *will* happen, eventually. That satellite that was impacted recently had a lot smaller cross-section than ISS does. I'm actually rather surprised that the ISS hasn't been holed by something smaller yet.

      Cheers,
      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    16. Re:Soyuz is invincible. by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        That's the lowest possible figure, assuming the two shared nearly the same orbit.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    17. Re:Soyuz is invincible. by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative

      I swear, that Soyuz module will never die, considering how old it is.

      Yeah, for a 2002 model it's doing pretty good isn't it? (If you disregard the multiple times it has suffered systems failure on re-entry.)
       
      Seriously - though people refer to the craft as generically as 'Soyuz', that is like referring to all Ford Thunderbird's as a 'Thunderbird' without regards to model year. The current mark of Soyuz is the Soyuz-TMA, which had it's first flight in 2002 and has only flown 12 complete missions with the 13th currently on orbit. It's had significant failures on three of those missions - including two of the last three.
       
      The Soyuz has evolved significantly along its journey from a free flying general purpose orbiter to a dedicated station taxi. The internals of a current mark Soyuz bear little resemblance to the original.

    18. Re:Soyuz is invincible. by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > It *will* happen, eventually. That satellite that was impacted recently had a lot
      > smaller cross-section than ISS does. I'm actually rather surprised that the ISS hasn't
      > been holed by something smaller yet.

      The Air Force has neither the resources nor the mandate to precisely track and plot every object that has any significant chance of hitting any satellite but they do so for anything that looks like it might hit the ISS. They publish approximate orbital elements for everything over 4".

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    19. Re:Soyuz is invincible. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      True. If the debris hits the Soyuz everybody is pretty likely to die no matter what.

      However, sheltering in the Soyuz was probably still a wise move. The smaller craft has a lower cross section than the entire ISS which makes a collision less likely. If debris hit the ISS anywhere then anyplace on the ISS would be a bad place to be due to depressurization, induced rotation, electrical problems, etc. If you're in the Soyuz with the hatch closed then if anything happened on the ISS you could just undock and thrust away. It wouldn't be risk free if you have some kind of rotation and there is a risk of banging into things while maneuvering away, but at least you're in a pressurized craft designed for re-entry wearing space suits.

      Even if you did a good job of sealing off every compartment in the ISS you could still end up being stock in compartment A with your ride home three depressurized compartments away with maybe a pressurized compartment with a fire in it tossed in for good measure. Just getting to the Soyuz could be very tricky even in a suit - better to already be sitting in it ready to detach...

    20. Re:Soyuz is invincible. by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        I wasn't arguing against sheltering in the Soyuz. I was just pointing out that the Soyuz isn't this indestructible bomb shelter of a spacecraft like the poster I was replying to seemed to think it is.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  3. 18 crew members! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow!

    1. Re:18 crew members! by Thelasko · · Score: 2, Informative

      Timothy strikes again!

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    2. Re:18 crew members! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does one become an editor anyway?

    3. Re:18 crew members! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you just don't want to know.

  4. Nice reporting by sunking2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    18 crew memebers? Are they shooting a Girls Gone Wild video up there or something?

    1. Re:Nice reporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd buy that.

    2. Re:Nice reporting by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      TFA says 3 crew members. If there's an additional 15 GGW up there, then I'd be making every excuse to stay inside too.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    3. Re:Nice reporting by peragrin · · Score: 1

      That was my thought. I figured that the ISS could hold 12 max.

      Soyez can hold 3. I would love to know how they put 18 in there.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:Nice reporting by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      The article has been edited and changed. It originally had 18. The summary should probably re cut and paste to update this and end the confusion.

    5. Re:Nice reporting by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd bittorrent that.

      Fixed that for you

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Nice reporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      ... for a dollar.

    7. Re:Nice reporting by hansamurai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is Slashdot, there will be a dupe tonight by kdawson where the number will be changed. Don't expect it to be right then either though.

    8. Re:Nice reporting by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

      It's like the old phone booth trick.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    9. Re:Nice reporting by Em+Emalb · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're right. And I for one am beginning to question how they got 213 midgets and a donkey in the space station.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    10. Re:Nice reporting by zvar · · Score: 1

      It's kdawson's post. It's not meant to make sense. :)

  5. Eighteen!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eighteen people seems like way too many for a Soyuz!

  6. 18 Crew? by Obasan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... or Expedition 18?

    1. Re:18 Crew? by Renegade88 · · Score: 1

      Bingo

  7. How many crew members? by Mindwarp · · Score: 1

    18 crew members? What, are they having some kind of party up there? Did somebody drop in unannounced?

    --
    The gift of death metal does not smile on the good looking.
    1. Re:How many crew members? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's those bloody hitchhikers.

  8. 18 crew members? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Umm...since when does the ISS have 18 crew members? Last I'd heard it was 3 and going to be doubled to 6 in the next few months.

  9. 18 Crew members! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, they certainly are getting busy up there.

  10. 3 people on board, not 18 by GottMitUns · · Score: 3, Informative

    There are 3 individuals on board: 2 Americans and 1 Russian.

    1. Re:3 people on board, not 18 by noidentity · · Score: 1

      There are 3 individuals on board: 2 Americans and 1 Russian.

      So that leaves 15 unaccounted for! Did they fall out a hole made by the debris?

    2. Re:3 people on board, not 18 by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Duh, the americans count for nine people each, the russian doesn't count.

    3. Re:3 people on board, not 18 by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      I hear Americans usually take up two sits on an airplane, but THREE? How many times a day exactly do they serve McDonald's super-size meals on the ISS?

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
  11. if all that air escapes the station by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how does that effect junk in orbit around
    the iss' altitude?

  12. Expedition 18 to the ISS. Not 18 members. by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Informative

    The current expedition is Expedition 18. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition_18 . This likely got garbled at some point from something like "Expedition 18 Crew" to "18 crew."

  13. TMA-13? by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 2, Funny

    WTF? Are they hauling them back from Jupiter now?

    --
    If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
  14. Re: Expedition 18 to the ISS. Not 18 members. by Mindwarp · · Score: 1

    I was just imagining the 'clown car' version of the Soyuz.

    --
    The gift of death metal does not smile on the good looking.
  15. So androids don't count, huh? by StefanJ · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bigot! Someday we will rise up against our . . . uh, oh, never mind. Human here. Not an escaped replicant.

  16. 18 People? by gweihir · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I thought they flew only 3 up that are still there. They shure breed fast in orbit....

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  17. In other news by djupedal · · Score: 4, Funny

    .... slashdope editors were hit in the head with falling space debris today, further complicating their inability to detect sloppy facts.

    This has not impacted their availability and readers are cautioned to continue questioning anything masquerading as fact.

    1. Re:In other news by Sleepy · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... There goes your ability to EVER moderate posts again... ;-)

    2. Re:In other news by djupedal · · Score: 1

      > "Update: 03/12 18:42 GMT by T : The original story incorrectly said the ISS had 18 crew members. Luckily for the three in the Soyuz, that was a mistake."

      Hey, T, the three already in the Soyuz would be protected, right? Regardless of how many more there may or may not have been... They don't need luck.

      Makes no sense ya mah'rune.

    3. Re:In other news by Sleepy · · Score: 1

      Why was this modded funny? I'm pretty sure I -am- blacklisted from moderation. Not that U can't laugh aHeh. =:-O

      (If there's an actual admin who sees this: after 13 years using slashdot.org and karma="50", I don't think I've been picked for moderation since before XP came out. Mostly I'm curious... either there's bias in the selection, or I offended someone..)

  18. Opportunity is perfect by WindBourne · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Now is the time for private investors to step forward with solutions. For example a small craft to grab and safely drop items (lower their speeds at the right time ) could take down items that are 30 CM and bigger. Perhaps, system for taking down whole sats. Keep in mind that working sats have to maneuver around them, which is a lose in energy. No doubt countries or even insurance companies would pay for this.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Opportunity is perfect by geekoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What if you used an ion drive and a fuel system for quick maneuvering. Maybe soemthing that can dock with the Space Station for refueling?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Opportunity is perfect by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Could also do the cable idea. That would allow you to speed up/slow down so that you move in altitudes. Then use small ion drive (or even draco thrusters) to manuever around. Ideally, a company would build a larger system that can hook up to whole sats and de-orbit them, without having to go down themselves. Then use that as a tug to move other systems around including hooking up to a smaller system that is designed to capture or slow down increasingly smaller parts. As far as paying for it, simply take an estimate of parts and size, and then charge a price to those that want their items de-orbitted. Ideally, govs will start holding companies and themselves culpable for their garbage. This would also cause future companies to re-design launches as well as sats.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Opportunity is perfect by david.given · · Score: 4, Informative

      For example a small craft to grab and safely drop items (lower their speeds at the right time ) could take down items that are 30 CM and bigger.

      Harder than you'd think. To deorbit a fragment like this you need to:

      1. Change your orbit to match that of the fragment
      2. Rendezvous with fragment, then grab it
      3. Change your orbit to intersect the atmosphere, then let go of the fragment
      4. Change your orbit so that you don't deorbit

      So that's three major orbital manoeuvres, per fragment. And that sort of stuff is really expensive: in order to move from a circular orbit around the equator to a circular orbit around the pole, you need twice the delta-V that you used to get into orbit in the first place!

      So it would probably be cheaper to use a single disposable vehicle that you launch to a specific debris cloud, and then it collects as much crap as it can and then deorbits. But even that's going to be a major project --- and much of the debris up there right now is on the order of paint flecks, which are damn hard to pick up (or even find).

      So this sort of thing isn't nearly as simple as it first sounds...

    4. Re:Opportunity is perfect by codemaster2b · · Score: 1

      Okay, objects in geosynchronous orbit have a velocity of 18000 miles/hr or greater, and relative to each other than could even double (but if you were very good, you could match orbits). So, how exactly do you grab one?

      --
      And over there we have the labyrinth guards. One always lies, one always tells the truth, and one stabs people who ask t
    5. Re:Opportunity is perfect by Sleepy · · Score: 1

      How about just opening the shuttle windows, and firing on the debris with a BB gun?

      Works against those pesky kids on my lawn...

    6. Re:Opportunity is perfect by WindBourne · · Score: 1
      Odd.
      I would have done it radically different for the items that I mentioned (10 cm's up to a set size).
      1. Change your orbit to match that of the fragment
      2. Rendezvous with fragment, then grab it
      3. Then kick it out the back, with a greatly reduced speed (perhaps spring loaded? or behind an ion drive?), allowing gravity to pull it down.

      Of course, I was picking particular sizes for a reason.

      When it is a bigger systems, such as a Sat, then it might be nice to put a small disposable system together.
      Finally, when it comes to smaller pieces such as the paint flecks, yeah, none of these are going to work. Of course, Lasers/ water bags, etc might work.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:Opportunity is perfect by mhall119 · · Score: 2, Informative

      So that's three major orbital manoeuvres, per fragment.

      You make it too complicated. You don't have to pick up the fragment, move yourself, then drop the fragment. You just have to exchange velocity with the fragment during a very brief interaction, flinging you every-so-slightly outside your orbit,and flinging it every-so-slightly inside it's orbit. Gravity takes care of the rest.

      much of the debris up there right now is on the order of paint flecks, which are damn hard to pick up (or even find).

      Again, too complicated. What you need is something large, light weight, and sticky. A simple cylinder filled with an aero-gel just needs to fly through the debris cloud, letting the pieces impact the gel and get stuck there. The added mass, plus decreased speed, would automatically deorbit the collector.

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    8. Re:Opportunity is perfect by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Let me see if I understand this right. We have for multiple generations had space crafts joining up together at 17500 mph (same orbit, same direction, ALMOST the same speed), and you think that something that is higher altitude, and moving slightly faster is a big deal???????? Really?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:Opportunity is perfect by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      A simple cylinder filled with an aero-gel just needs to fly through the debris cloud,

      An enormous cylinder filled with aero-gel ... (or sharks or lawyers or whatever)

      You're neglecting how mind bogglety big space is. Don't think debris cloud, think "large areas of volume with a few tiny little bits of dangerous, fast moving matter". It's not like you can see the debris from afar. No "on deck there! There be debris!". No space Roombas.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    10. Re:Opportunity is perfect by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      For example a small craft to grab and safely drop items (lower their speeds at the right time ) could take down items that are 30 CM and bigger.

      Harder than you'd think. To deorbit a fragment like this you need to:

      1. Change your orbit to match that of the fragment
      2. Rendezvous with fragment, then grab it
      3. Change your orbit to intersect the atmosphere, then let go of the fragment
      4. Change your orbit so that you don't deorbit

      So that's three major orbital manoeuvres, per fragment. And that sort of stuff is really expensive: in order to move from a circular orbit around the equator to a circular orbit around the pole, you need twice the delta-V that you used to get into orbit in the first place!

      So it would probably be cheaper to use a single disposable vehicle that you launch to a specific debris cloud, and then it collects as much crap as it can and then deorbits. But even that's going to be a major project --- and much of the debris up there right now is on the order of paint flecks, which are damn hard to pick up (or even find).

      So this sort of thing isn't nearly as simple as it first sounds...

      All new satellites need passive deorbiting features. I read a journal article a couple years ago which stated that a few pounds of very thin, very long metal cable that would release and trail out behind a satellite for something like many hundreds of meters would produce enough drag to take down things in low Earth orbit in the few months to few years time frame.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    11. Re:Opportunity is perfect by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Ever wonder where all those dings on your truck and house windows are coming from? Not from the semi's driving in your front yard. Let a kid know that you have a BB Gun and are not afraid to use it, and they will be happy to show you theirs.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    12. Re:Opportunity is perfect by codemaster2b · · Score: 1

      Yes sir, I do. 18000 mph is 5 miles/sec. What instruments do we have that can measure and track anything like that? If you were in a space craft, and something went past you at that speed, you would not be able to detect it at all. We can join craft together because we already know precisely where everything is, and how fast its going. And to be fair, we do know where a large number of space junk is, so you could in theory set up an operation to manually track down and grab anything that can be tracked from earth.

      --
      And over there we have the labyrinth guards. One always lies, one always tells the truth, and one stabs people who ask t
    13. Re:Opportunity is perfect by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Radar/ Lidar/ etc. Matching the orbit is not the real problem. The Russians, and now Europeans, do auto docking (though they do have targets to work from which makes things easier).

      The real problem is how to touch it and to grapple it? The sats were not made to be held. They have pieces that break off easily. In addition, many are cylindrical. Solve that, and the rest falls in place.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    14. Re:Opportunity is perfect by david.given · · Score: 2, Informative

      You make it too complicated. You don't have to pick up the fragment, move yourself, then drop the fragment. You just have to exchange velocity with the fragment during a very brief interaction, flinging you every-so-slightly outside your orbit,and flinging it every-so-slightly inside it's orbit. Gravity takes care of the rest.

      Unfortunately all gravity is going to take care off is steering both objects around the earth in perfectly normal orbits. Remember, there's no such thing as an unstable orbit (excluding certain complicated interactions with other bodies) --- all orbits are stable unless they hit something (like the atmosphere). Any debris low enough to be easy to deorbit is most likely going to do so soon of its own accord anyway. To deorbit the rest, you're going to have to change its velocity by a lot. Otherwise you achieved nothing.

      The only way of changing the velocity of such an object is either rapidly, which means a collision, or slowly, which means your vehicle's going to have to grab the target object and do an engine burn. A collision is going to produce secondary debris, and will most likely kill your vehicle. Grabbing the object is a horribly complex engineering problem.

      Again, too complicated. What you need is something large, light weight, and sticky. A simple cylinder filled with an aero-gel just needs to fly through the debris cloud, letting the pieces impact the gel and get stuck there. The added mass, plus decreased speed, would automatically deorbit the collector.

      No, not really --- if you're going slowly enough to let the particles stick, rather than just vaporise (causing secondary debris), you're not going to transfer enough momentum to do anything useful. Attaching your aerogel to a vehicle which you can use to deorbit the whole lot might be potentially useful, though, but you'll still need a hell of a lot of it. Debris clouds are huge. China's 2007 antisatellite test filled everything on a particular orbital plane from about 200km up to about 4000km up.

      What's more, aerogel's only good against stuff small enough and light enough to capture --- that debris cloud contains an estimated 35,000 objects bigger than 1cm. These are likely to punch straight through your aerogel, causing yet more secondary debris...

    15. Re:Opportunity is perfect by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Stop it.

      We know space is big.
      Actually, the poster know it better then you, becasue by comparison, any container of aero-gel we make will be small.

      We coudl sue many large containers of areo-gel.
      It doesn't make you look smart and you are not helping.

      And how fast it's moving only matter in comparison to how fast the aero-gel is moving.

      The poster idea is very smart, and it seems workable. In fact, something like that would make a good anti satellite weapon. Instead of blowing it up, cover it with an aero-gel cloud. It would then de-orbit.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    16. Re:Opportunity is perfect by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        Except that these debris clouds are often kilometers in diameter, and aerogel is expensive. It runs about $5 per square foot just for the relatively thin stuff used to insulate jackets or refrigerators. One would have to use something considerably thicker to stop objects larger than dust particles moving at thousands of miles per hour relative to your garbage collector.

        Also, a simple cylinder would not suffice. You'd have to have a disk of the stuff, probably at least half a km or so in diameter - and even with that might have to make multiple passes thru the cloud. You have to have a large surface area for it to be even marginally effective, the larger the surface area, the less fuel you expend in your passes (although you expend much more fuel getting the structure up there in the first place).

        In addition, larger pieces of debris will have enough kinetic energy to simply put holes in your collector or structurally disrupt it.

        Unless/until we can manufacture aerogel cheaply in ginormous quantities, and figure out some way to deploy it in orbit in larger structures that *can also be deorbited*, aerogel isn't a solution.

        Now if we can figure out how to create large electromagnetic mesh structures similar to what would be needed to build interstellar ramjets, that might be something that may work, most debris has at least some metallic component. But we'd also need large power plants to drive the EM fields - fission at a minimum, good luck with that, considering the paranoia surrounding launching nuclear powered satellites - and we'd have to figure out how to deploy those structures as well.

        For the time being we're better off focusing on ways to minimize the amount of junk we put up there in the future and hardening craft against small impacts (aerogel-armored hulls and redundant onboard systems.) For stuff about a cm or larger in size we're simply screwed.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    17. Re:Opportunity is perfect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Play a game of orbital billiards. If you know the orbit of the debris, simulate striking it at various points during that orbit with a small projectile, adjusting its orbit enough that it deorbits (up or down, doesn't matter) and the projectile either goes down [into the atmosphere] or goes up [out into space] with it. If you get really good, you plan out ricochet shots.

      Now sure, you need to take into account the recoil of whatever you used to fire on the debris, but that would require much less energy than moving over to the debris and deorbiting it by thrusting your ship against it.

    18. Re:Opportunity is perfect by r0cketman · · Score: 1

      Aerogel sounds like the best solution. Every spacecraft sent up should have a canister of this material to release in orbit creating a "net" so if anything comes loose through collision or whatever it could be caught in the aerogel.

    19. Re:Opportunity is perfect by Uber+Banker · · Score: 1

      Simple: a really big lump of plasticine sufficiently soft to absorb stuff, and sufficiently solid to stay in one piece.

    20. Re:Opportunity is perfect by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      The poster idea is very smart, and it seems workable. In fact, something like that would make a good anti satellite weapon. Instead of blowing it up, cover it with an aero-gel cloud. It would then de-orbit.

      Yes, it would make an OK anti satellite weapon - probably the only ASW that wouldn't get the world up in arms (so to speak) because it wouldn't create more of mess. But I don't think it would be an effective Space Roomba because of the need to using all that Delta-V. If you are going after pea sized junk, you have to find it and then maneuver into the vicinity and match orbit paths. You would not have to match orbits precisely because you are planning on the aerogel to absorb the kinetic energy of the junk. But that energy goes somewhere.... Which means Delta-V to control. If you are trying to catch a big fragment or a whole satellite / booster / alien spacecraft then you have an even higher energy requirement to do something with your prize.Even if you're planning on just "deorbiting" the thing, it takes energy to move in any direction. Less to move downward in the gravity well, but you're in orbit so much of your energy vector is remaining in orbit. And energy ain't free - especially in space.

      So I don't think shooting up bunches of aerogel is going to do much.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    21. Re:Opportunity is perfect by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I'd think that aerogel would tend to self-deorbit (unless it is VERY high up) due to its high drag:mass ratio.

      Stuff punching holes in it isn't a big deal - each pass through the gel would reduce the velocity of the debris.

      I think the real trick (besides making the gel in the first place) is putting up a big mass of it in orbit without taking out satellites. Keeping it oriented is an issue as well - drag would tend to turn it sideways. You might not want to put thrusters on it if your goal is to not risk putting up yet more junk.

      I'm not sure that you even need aerogel - styrofoam might work just as well. We don't need to catch debris - we just need to slow it down. The right material is anything that puts up the biggest surface area for the smallest manufacture/launch cost.

  19. Bounce the graviton particle beam... by Jon.Laslow · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...off the main deflector dish, that's the way we do things lad, we're making shit up as we wish!

    1. Re:Bounce the graviton particle beam... by xaositects · · Score: 1

      Space junk and golf clubs they post no threat to us, cause if we find we're in a bind....

      Too bad NASA is not as creative as Gene Roddenberry (or Voltaire)

  20. Irony by diablovision · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What would be ironic is if the space junk hit the Soyuz capsule when they were in it. Probably not the best strategy to put all the eggs in one basket in that case.

    --
    120 characters isn't enough to explain it.
  21. Build that water cannon! by oftenwrongsoong · · Score: 1

    Yap. They really need to build that big laser/water cannon to blast this stuff out of orbit. I heard there's all kinds of nonsense floating around up there. Office chairs from Washington State among other things.

    1. Re:Build that water cannon! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      They really need to build that big laser/water cannon to blast this stuff out of orbit

      I didn't read the article the other day (being /., why would I bother?) but wouldn't the water cannon wind up leaving ice particles floating around up there? Wouldn't re-supplying it be a PITA?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Build that water cannon! by fataugie · · Score: 1

      There you go again....letting pesky details get in the way of a good story.

      --

      WTF? Over?

  22. This is starting to get silly... by NoNeeeed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At some point all those agencies (government and private) who have put that junk up there are going to have to get together and find a solution. That includes all the private sat operators who have left stuff up there as well as the national space agencies.

    At the moment everyone seems to be saying, "well, it's not *all* my mess, so I'm not cleaning it up". At some point this is going to start impacting (literally) everyone involved with space. We've already lost a few satellites, how many more do we need to lose before people get off their arses and find a proper solution.

    You could probably work out the approximate proportions of the total problem were caused by each agency/company, so divide the bill up accordingly.

    Of course, anyone who has watched engineers divide up the bill in a restaurant will know that probably isn't as easy as it sounds...

    1. Re:This is starting to get silly... by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just say who ever pays the biggest portion gets to put weapons in space~

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:This is starting to get silly... by fuzzlost · · Score: 1

      Every time I read about space debris and its implications, I am reminded of the scene from Wall-E when the ship leaves earth...

    3. Re:This is starting to get silly... by lxs · · Score: 1

      I propose a huge spaceship that can transform into a maid with a vacuum cleaner.

      Somebody check if we can hire Rick Moranis to command it.

    4. Re:This is starting to get silly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gives them something to shoot at when they want to fine tune their new earth based lasers and other toys.

  23. Debris Details by Muad'Dave · · Score: 5, Informative
    From Space.com:

    The wayward satellite motor part came from an outdated PAM-D rocket engine that was once used to boost a satellite from low-Earth orbit a few hundred miles above Earth out to a geosynchronous position about 22,300 miles (36,000 km) above the planet. The debris was small, just 1/3 of an inch long, and was flying at about 19,800 mph, NASA officials said. The space station orbits the Earth at about 17,500 mph.

    Here's a picture of a PAM-D motor.

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    1. Re:Debris Details by afabbro · · Score: 1

      The debris was small, just 1/3 of an inch long, and was flying at about 19,800 mph, NASA officials said. The space station orbits the Earth at about 17,500 mph.

      That's nothing. I'm moving through space at 64,800mph and I'm just sitting here at my desk!

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    2. Re:Debris Details by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        Interesting; the size that space.com quotes seems too small - from what I've read the minimum size of debris they can track in LEO is about ten cm.

        As I noted in another post USA Today's article puts the size at about five inches, which seems more plausible.

        The size difference may not seem important to some, but it's a pretty big difference at those speeds, the difference between a (likely patchable) hole in the ISS and probable complete destruction of a module.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    3. Re:Debris Details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      This report was clearly fabricated to conceal the fact that it was actually the size and shape of an astronaut's tool bag...

    4. Re:Debris Details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Not that CNN is authoritative, but... they reported "The 9-millimeter (1/3-inch) chunk of metal came from a satellite rocket motor that had been used on an earlier space mission, NASA said." USA today is the only source I've seen that has described it as 5 inches.

      So maybe somebody can track things much smaller than 10cm in LEO.

    5. Re:Debris Details by shadowbearer · · Score: 2, Informative

        Here's the most recent info I can find (Feb 2009) FWIW:

        From: http://www.spacemart.com/reports/The_Problem_Of_Space_Junk_999.html

        Quote:

        "The total number of discovered and monitored pieces with a diameter of more than 10 centimeters is approaching 14,000. Something like 950 of them are functioning satellites from different countries.

      The number of bodies up to 10 centimeters in size has reached 200,000 to 250,000; between 0.1 centimeter and 1 centimeter, 70 million to 80 million; and a few microns or less, on the order of 1013-1014*. But these last figures are only estimates, because such particles are beyond the observational powers of telescopes and radars and cannot be catalogued."

      * I presume they meant 10^13 to 10^14

        Now it's possible that the military or NASA has radar that can track much smaller objects, but I find it unlikely that such wouldn't be at least common, findable knowledge - that's one to two orders of magnitude smaller.

        Also, if the number estimates quoted are correct, then it's likely that objects close to a cm in size pass close to the station fairly frequently without being noticed. The volume of LEO is pretty large, but 7x10^7 is a pretty large number as well.

        I'd love to get more data, but the only place it seems to be available is at www.space-track.org, and they require a somewhat rigorous registration process (due to national security issues). Sigh.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    6. Re:Debris Details by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      I doubt that there is a sharp boundary above which they can see everything clearly and below which all is invisible. More likely 10cm is the limit above which they are confident that they have detected and cataloged pretty much everything while below that things get increasingly iffy the smaller you go.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    7. Re:Debris Details by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        I realize that. But we're still talking about at least an order of magnitude difference in size; squared if we're talking about radar cross sections.

        In any case, at this point we'll just have to wait and see if NASA publishes more solid data. As of a couple hours ago I'd not seen anything official on the news section of their website.

        I wonder if they've been able to keep tracking this object? Like you said in your other reply, they would tend to concentrate on immediate threats to ISS, which would explain why this one was detected so late.

        I don't imagine that the AF is eager to show just how good their radars are, either. But if we take this threat seriously, sooner or later they are going to have to start releasing the data to the world at large in order that others can assess threats to orbital assets.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    8. Re:Debris Details by twosat · · Score: 2, Informative

      nasaspaceflight.com is reporting that the debris was a "yo weight". "The debris object is called a "yo weight" - which was originally part of a Delta PAM-D stage - used to launch GPS 37 in 1993. The yo weight is a small mass attached to a 1-meter-long cable, used to tumble the stage after separation from the payload so it doesn't recontact. Although it would have a mass less than 1kg, travelling at 17,500 mph makes even the smallest object a serious threat."

  24. Who is to blame? by Dripdry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who is to blame as this happens more often? Is there going to be a tracking mechanism that shows exactly whose debris causes damage to a craft?
    It seems to me that if countries are going to be so irresponsible as to not decommission their craft and satellites correctly they ought to either clean it up or pay a very hefty fine to reimburse the loss of a country's hard-earned space mission.

    For instance, if China treats space the way they treat many other things (ie little or no regard for its preservation, pardon the sweeping statement) then what recourse will other countries have? If they have a project which has cost a nation billions of dollars and a small piece of shrapnel knocks out the whole damn thing, what happens next?

    I'm sure someone will get paid big bucks to make a solution, but it sure sounds like space debris is quickly becoming a problem. Maybe it's just coincidence, though.

    --
    -
    1. Re:Who is to blame? by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 1

      For instance, if China treats space the way they treat many other things (ie little or no regard for its preservation, pardon the sweeping statement) then what recourse will other countries have?

      It's particularly difficult to pardon the hypocrisy your sweeping statement if, as I suspect, you happen to be in North America.

      --
      Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
    2. Re:Who is to blame? by Zerth · · Score: 1

      What do you have against Mexicans? It's not like AEXA is putting up a whole lot of rockets. Or actually even doing a lot of existing.

    3. Re:Who is to blame? by Sleepy · · Score: 1

      It's good to remind America not to get on it's high horse about this (*ahem* Mountain removal, and the blind eye the US media turns to it...).

      On the other hand, we didn't sink all our oldest culture under 3 Gorges Dam, and we don't deliberately put melamine poison onto food, toys, and baby formula. Weak as our FDA is, they check on these things...

    4. Re:Who is to blame? by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sure the reason OP didn't come up with a better example is that he was being crushed by a fucking tank. Come on -- China is what the Bush regime aspired to be like.

    5. Re:Who is to blame? by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      Hypocrisy or not, I was looking for an informed discussion as opposed to culture wars or finger-pointing.

      And why is it particularly difficult to pardon? Have you conflated what my country/government does with my actions? Why am I suddenly the Supreme Envoy of The United States? I am quite tired of the rest of the world rabbiting on about the USA's hypocrisy while they themselves commit similar acts.

      I do my tiny part to correct the kinds of missteps The States make but one person (most people) can only do so much. So wherever you are perhaps it makes more sense to be understanding of those who want to change things and not automatically lump us together. Our policies, fine. As individual people? Then you've entered Ignorance Central.

      --
      -
    6. Re:Who is to blame? by pacinpm · · Score: 1

      For instance, if China treats space the way they treat many other things (ie little or no regard for its preservation, pardon the sweeping statement)[...]

      USA is no better than China (in fact all the countries have their part of sins). Just remember when USA reduced CFC emission?

    7. Re:Who is to blame? by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      they ought to either clean it up or pay a very hefty fine to reimburse the loss of a country's hard-earned space mission.

      Yeah, those other countries will be eager to pay you whatever you tell them...right. It took decades to get any sort of compensation out of the Soviet Union after one of their failed satellites contaminated large swaths of northern Canada with radioactive debris. The United States was fined $400 for littering when parts of Skylab came down in rural Australia (a fine which remains unpaid to this day). The response from most countries would probably be something on the lines of "f*** off", albeit in more polite and diplomatic language. It is always instructive to remember when talking about sovereign countries that international law, treaties, etc are only courtesies granted from one country to another(s). If at any time any one of them wants to dispute then they can simply refuse to cooperate in which case your options are sanctions (i.e. we will screw you in every way that we can short of coming over there and stomping your guts out) or armed conflict (i.e. we are coming over there to stomp your guts out). Most of the time, like at summits of world leaders, everyone just smiles and says "yes" because it looks better that way even though nothing changes.

    8. Re:Who is to blame? by AtariKee · · Score: 1

      (*ahem* Mountain removal, and the blind eye the US media turns to it...)

      Jim Hightower would be proud :)

      --
      "You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
      "Thank you, Master Control"
      -Sark and the MCP
    9. Re:Who is to blame? by afabbro · · Score: 1

      For instance, if China treats space the way they treat many other things (ie little or no regard for its preservation, pardon the sweeping statement) then what recourse will other countries have?

      It's particularly difficult to pardon the hypocrisy your sweeping statement if, as I suspect, you happen to be in North America.

      I'll take the environmental standards and pollution levels in the USA over China's any day of the week.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    10. Re:Who is to blame? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I'm sure someone will get paid big bucks to make a solution, but it sure sounds like space debris is quickly becoming a problem. Maybe it's just coincidence, though.

      Just clean it up with water. What could be easier?

    11. Re:Who is to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Space debris has always been a problem, it's just now getting the recognition and concern that it warrants. I even sat through an engineering presentation 10 years ago discussing possible solutions.

      What debris currently exists is mostly due to US, Russian, and EU activities, so no need to jump the gun on China, others have beaten them to the punch, though I'm sure there's plenty of f*ck-up they can bring to the party if they choose.

      As far as your primary question goes.... How are similar, international-pollution related things dealt with currently, if at all? Any legislation will probably reference similar priors. It's definitely going to be an interesting topic in coming years.

    12. Re:Who is to blame? by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 1

      Have you been to your local dumpsite? Imagine if there were 1.5 billion Americans (and Canadians). How would North American consumption patterns and "environmental standards" really compare?

      --
      Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
    13. Re:Who is to blame? by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 1

      I was looking for an informed discussion as opposed to culture wars or finger-pointing

      So you started your informed discussion with "no culture war or finger-pointing" by making a sweeping statement about 1.5 billion people... I'm no supporter of the Chinese government, but I'm no supporter of sanctimony either.

      Go to your local dumpsite (do you know where it is?) and tell me how North American (including Canadian) consumerism is demonstrating its respect for the environment. Can you drink any of the water without treatment? How's the air in the big cities? How would your culture scale up to 1.5 billion people? Are the Plastic Dead Zones in the oceans the doing of those dirty, inconsiderate Chinese?

      The US is not the victim of an international conspiracy. Unless you consider having mistakes brought to your attention a conspiracy. They used to call that "learning" in school.

      --
      Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
    14. Re:Who is to blame? by afabbro · · Score: 1

      Have you been to your local dumpsite? Imagine if there were 1.5 billion Americans (and Canadians). How would North American consumption patterns and "environmental standards" really compare?

      Quite well. See Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode on recycling. The waste of all North America over the next 1,000 years would fit in a landfill 35 miles square. And none of us would ever have to look at it or worry about it.

      Totalitarian systems that don't care about the health of their citizens are a different matter. You don't see any thriving democracies among the most polluted parts of the world.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    15. Re:Who is to blame? by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      While I could have picked other examples, such as Russia's recent debacle with that Iridium satellite, I cite China partly because of one of the last satellites they "decommissioned".
      http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceandsociety/2007/01/china_blows_up_.html

      I certainly thought there was a more recent incident but it looks like China may be taking measures to mitigate debris:
      http://www.space.com/spacenews/070903_businessmonday_china_debris.html

      The U.S. certainly has its share of crap that it does but the idea was to ask about who would be responsible. Perhaps a less inflammatory statement or an alternate example country such as the U.S. would have been better.

      --
      -
    16. Re:Who is to blame? by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      Can you address the logical fallacy where you tied my personal statement to my country and that by extension I cannot be given reprieve for an act that I did not, and do my best not to, commit? It's like saying that if a white racial rights activist addresses the issue of racism and uses black people as an example of people who also commit racism, then that white person is a hypocrite (which he is) but just can't be forgiven because white people also commit racist acts. Seriously, wtf mate?

      Yes, I was looking for a reasonable discussion. I may have started it less than perfectly, but is launching an attack against a well-intentioned, if flawed, statement really productive? I don't expect a discussion on slashdot to change the world, but why create animosity on a site where we actually have the chance to reach an understanding between two intelligent people? Maybe I'm too new here :)

      As far as a conspiracy goes: You're right, there is no conspiracy. Is it necessary to put words in my mouth? I'm only saying that the rest of the world has its own hypocrisy too.

      The air in the big cities is more than reasonable, and I spend about half my time in one of the biggest (and best :) ), Chicago. I'm not sure where you are from, but most US cities are nothing like Beijing's cloud of pollution (Los Angeles, perhaps). Sure, it's probably not the healthiest, cleanest air in our cities but I can go running and cycling and go just as far as when I'm out in the middle of nowhere, so the quality can't be *that* bad.

      Yes, I know where the local dumpsite is. It's called the Arf Landfill (how's that for a lovely name?). The dump sites are all self-contained, mandated by law to be leakproof. There are a few places in the US that have done it half-assed and gotten reamed by the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) and made to clean it up, but on the whole they're fairly clean (if smelly). I have a friend who works on groundwater monitoring for the EPA. If his tests ever came up badly I'd know pretty quickly, and he covers a number of states in the Midwest.

      As far as the Plastic Dead Zone (East, West, or both?) goes: That's a terrible mess. I don't know what percentage of it is whose fault, but I do know it's not all the USA's. A lot of that debris actually comes from shipping lane traffic I think, so perhaps we could correlate shipping traffic to each country and get a rough estimate of who is causing what percentage of it. Should we all get together and clean it up? Absolutely. I sure hope we wake the hell up one day and deal with it, but I'm not sure it should all be on the US's shoulders.

      First, I'm sorry if this has gotten your ire up. I really try to be part of good discussions here, with the occasional silly or snarky comment. I'm not the smartest one here (god help us all if I am) so I try to give some respect so that when I mess up I can get a little leeway in return.

      Have a good one.

      --
      -
    17. Re:Who is to blame? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Certainly the lax Chinese regulators need to be prodded on melamine any time the opportunity comes up. That was just crazy - and this was actually a deliberate attempt to circumvent regulation rather than a simple cost-cutting measure (the melamine interferes with the protein assay on watered down milk).

      However, it wasn't all that long that people in the US were formulating drugs using ethylene glycol - which was a major driver for the creation of the US FDA.

      The US and USSR have certainly put up their fair share of space junk. However, they haven't done things like intentionally blow up satellites in orbit. Fixing the problems is a bit more constructive than merely assigning blame, but certainly China should be expected to pay for some of the cleanup.

  25. Note The Source by DynaSoar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The debris wasn't from a smashed satellite, either from collision with another or blasted by a missile. It was their own trash, "a piece of a satellite rocket motor left behind by an earlier space shuttle mission". The chances of something from an entirely different orbit impacting a craft are still infinitesimal. To quote the philosopher Adams "Space is big. Really big. You wouldn't believe how mind-boggling big it is." Compare to broken junk floating around even near Earth orbit is that big.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    1. Re:Note The Source by CruddyBuddy · · Score: 1
      And yet two satellites have in fact collided in orbit.

      http://www.space.com/news/090211-satellite-collision.html

      Smashy smashy!

      --
      ----------
      Any problem can be made unsolvable if there are enough meetings made to discuss it.
    2. Re:Note The Source by rlseaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The chances of something from an entirely different orbit impacting a craft are still infinitesimal.

      Much more likely than infinitesimal. As someone else commented, this has already happened. You must not have been watching the news lately.

      The odds are either identically zero if the orbits do not intersect, or are small but significant if they do intersect. Orbits are not static and basically are never perfect closed ellipses, so there is a fair amount of fuzziness about whether two close orbits do or do not intersect. And, of course, every pair of orbits (about the same primary) cross twice on opposite sides of the planet - the two questions to ask are 1) whether they cross at the same altitude, and 2) whether the two objects are at the crossing at the same time.

      Since an object in LEO completes about 15 orbits per day and each orbit crosses ALL others twice per orbit, there are many opportunities daily for collision. Most close passes are quite distant. Even if the two objects are near the particular crossing point the altitude may differ. Do the math, however, and you will find that there are several passages of two large objects within a few kilometers every single day. The odds of an actual collision then just scale as the volumes of the spacecraft divided by the volume of a unit cube. Wait long enough and they are guaranteed to collide.

      All else being equal, the odds are about even that two large objects (spacecraft sized or so) will collide once per decade. There are hundreds of such orbiting objects, of course, so the odds for a specific satellite are something like once per a few millennia - for a collision with a similarly sized object. The odds are correspondingly larger for a collision between a spacecraft and the much more numerous pieces of small orbital debris.

    3. Re:Note The Source by Mach25 · · Score: 1

      Although the shuttle program has deployed several satellites with PAM-D motors, this was not one of them. The Delta II rocket also uses PAM-D as a 3rd stage engine, which in this case, launched a GPS satellite back in 1993.

  26. Oblig. Scotty quote by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    I canno' change the laws o' slashdot... I mean, physics!

  27. More accurate early warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the removal of the space debris is a long-term effort if not an intractable problem at the moment, what about deploying a large screen, such as an unfurled mylar sheet, that can detect when it's been punctured and the size of the punction and place it into the same orbit as the ISS but 1/2 orbit in front. If it detects a puncture of sufficient size to be of concern, it could warn the ISS of debris on the way and provide 45 minutes of notice to get into the escape capsule or other protective enclosure.

    1. Re:More accurate early warning by rjmx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Trouble with that idea is that it'll only detect objects in almost exactly the same orbit as the ISS. And if they are in the same orbit, their velocities will be almost identical (Kepler's third law, correct?), and so the object will probably never catch the ISS (and if it did, their relative velocities would be quite low).

      From the differences in velocity mentioned in the space.com article, I'd guess that the debris is moving in a much more elliptical orbit than the ISS is. Makes it lots harder to detect.

  28. Look, we're gonna have to do this... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    ...so let's do it right the first few times:

    1. Send up a net to catch the big stuff. The size of the net and opening determines how many nets we send up. throw the net at Earth. Stuff burns up. The final net will probably more like mesh. On to step 2.

    2. Send up a disk of Aerogel. We did this on a smaller scale to capture comet debris. We don't need to get this one back, it can burn up when we throw this at Earth also. But if it doesn't burn, just aim it at the Pacific. Or Russia, some if it is their stuff after all. I live to close to the Iridium home, so that's out of the question, right?

    3. Mop up the remainder with variations on the theme.

    4. Profit!

    We're gonna have to do it. Let's do it right. And we will learn a lot about LEO maneuvering, targeting, robotics in space, etc. We can let the Chinese or the Russians, or the Japanese join in, maybe even Canada or India, some nations that wanna learn space stuff. And we could probably get some commercial outfit to bid on it.

    This is a tremendous opportunity, actually. A few $B should cover it. We spend that every week on landfills. Let's just do it.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  29. Re: Expedition 18 to the ISS. Not 18 members. by JustOK · · Score: 1

    NASA is working on it

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  30. They will call it.. by bdwoolman · · Score: 1

    The Astra Naughties. It ends with one clad only in a diaper... Oh, wait!

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
  31. 18 is only estimated count by dvh.tosomja · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Number 18 was estimated from the actual consumption of alcohol divided by average consumption of american astronaut. The whole difference was caused by pressence of one russian kosmonaut on board.

  32. Mod parent -1 offtopic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then +1 insightful.

  33. Best headline ever by metrometro · · Score: 1

    Form the USA Today story on this:

    Space station crew has close call with space junk

    Whoa! Dude, WTF?! Put that away or I'm telling Mission Control.

  34. Hmm, how about a committee? by White+Yeti · · Score: 5, Informative

    You mean some sort of Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee? They could meet every year to discuss topics and hand out assignments for the next year, and they could make reports to the UN, and stuff. Trouble is, no one else would ever know they existed.

    1. Re:Hmm, how about a committee? by Paua+Fritter · · Score: 1

      Please mod parent informative. I certainly had never heard of them.

    2. Re:Hmm, how about a committee? by LiSrt · · Score: 1

      If they launched their own junk-vaporising laser drones, that would get them noticed.

      I hope someone announces this at their meeting later this month.

  35. Unit conversions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    about 22,000 mph. That's almost ten kilometers a second [...] Google: 22000 mph in meters per second = 9834.88 meters per second.

    You can be sure the numbers came about like this: first there was a velocity of 10 km/s with a single significant digit. Some journalist converted that into mph adding a significant digit, and now you converted it back to "almost ten kilometers a second" (having added a whopping 4 more significant digits). For all you know it could be 14 km/s so the "almost" is not warranted.

    1. Re:Unit conversions by shadowbearer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

        22000 mph is "almost" ten km/s. Doesn't matter how the original figure was derived.

        Oh, and you are a pedantic idiot. Go find something useful to do.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  36. (Spit take) by ShadowSystems · · Score: 1

    Oh dear lord, that was beautiful...
    Of course, now I need to clean off my monitor & dry out my keyboard...
    But, damn it, that was funny .
    =)P

  37. Usable Energy by Stratocastr · · Score: 1

    Ok so here's an idea..

    We have objects flying around near the ISS at miles per second speeds, right?

    Why can't we utilize the kinetic energy of these objects?

    Or create our own probes that orbit earth and convert the earth's gravitational energy into kinetic energy that can *somehow* be transmitted back to earth?

    jus sayin

    --
    Slashdot - I went there to fix their grammar that they're so bad at.