Space Junk Getting Worse

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @07:27AM from the time-for-a-doomsday-machine dept.

HockeyPuck writes "According to Space.com the amount of space junk is getting worse. 'A head-on collision was averted between a spent upper stage from a Chinese rocket and the European Space Agency's (ESA) huge Envisat Earth remote-sensing spacecraft. [...] But what if the two objects had tangled? Such a space collision would have caused mayhem in the heavens, adding clutter to an orbit altitude where there are big problems already, said Heiner Klinkrad, head of the European Space Agency's Space Debris Office in Darmstadt, Germany."

242 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Push them further away by sopssa · 2010-02-24 07:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

When you abandon satellite, fuel tanks or anything else in the space, why not just push it floating further away in space? Let some aliens take care of them.
1. Re:Push them further away by Andorin · 2010-02-24 07:30 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Or the sun?
  
  --
  That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?
2. Re:Push them further away by Rene+S.+Hollan · 2010-02-24 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Because that takes fuel, whether to push them into a higher orbit or a lower one (say to disintegrate on reentry).
  
  --
  In Liberty, Rene
3. Re:Push them further away by crow · 2010-02-24 07:32 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I think they normally push them into an orbit that will degrade so that they'll burn up on reentry. That takes less energy than putting them on a trajectory that leaves Earth's orbit.
  The real problem is junk that doesn't have working thrusters and communications so that they can tell it to de-orbit.
4. Re:Push them further away by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 07:32 · Score: 0
  
  That is a perfect landfill, actually. We should start sending all our garbage there.
5. Re:Push them further away by ircmaxell · 2010-02-24 07:33 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  That's not a viable solution, because perhaps, someday very soon (on an interplanetary scale at least) we'll want to send something into space... The better alternative would be to put it into a degrading orbit, and let it burn up in the atmosphere or crash into the ocean. Then, you could create an autonomous robot to go out an collect the "small" debris (and incapacitated objects) that are out there, and send them into a degrading orbit. At least we'd be able to predict some cool shooting stars!
  
  --
  If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
6. Re:Push them further away by Tetsujin · 2010-02-24 07:34 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  When you abandon satellite, fuel tanks or anything else in the space, why not just push it floating further away in space? Let some aliens take care of them.
  It takes energy to send a satellite up into a higher orbit, and even more to push it out of Earth orbit entirely...
  For that matter it also takes energy to shift a satellite to a lower orbit, too. About the only thing you get for free is atmospheric drag, and then only once your satellite is already low enough to run into the upper atmosphere.
  To give a satellite the ability to do any of these things, it must carry its own rocket motors and fuel - this increases the satellite's launch-weight, which in turn increases the fuel requirements of the booster.
  
  --
  Bow-ties are cool.
7. Re:Push them further away by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 07:38 · Score: 0
  
  So I'm supposed to put up my cheetos and stop playing world of warcraft to come clean up YOUR garbage? You earthlings are lazy.
8. Re:Push them further away by Lovedumplingx · 2010-02-24 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Right? Didn't anyone watch Superman 4?
9. Re:Push them further away by beirutbob · 2010-02-24 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I was kinda thinking a bigger version of the mosquito laser that was posted a couple of weeks ago.
10. Re:Push them further away by Jeian · 2010-02-24 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  They tried something similar to this in Futurama. Didn't go so well.
11. Re:Push them further away by colmore · 2010-02-24 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Because Earth orbit is not zero gravity, it's freefall. Moving into a wider orbit takes thrust to counteract Earth's gravity, which is still considerable.
  
  --
  In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
12. Re:Push them further away by EchaniDrgn · 2010-02-24 07:50 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe they should make a space barge that goes around taking care of space junk...
  
  There's a movie there somewhere, I know it!
13. Re:Push them further away by nedlohs · 2010-02-24 07:51 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  That wouldn't take much fuel or anything...
14. Re:Push them further away by Lumpy · 2010-02-24 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Because they don't have a space trucker with unlimited fuel to do that.
  It's far easier to use the last of the fuel to decay the orbit and crash it to earth than design the satellite to be 80X larger so it has giant fuel tanks and a big engine to get it to escape velocity.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
15. Re:Push them further away by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-02-24 07:55 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  These days, for the most part, we do that. Launch trajectories are planned with CCAM (collision and contamination avoidance maneuvers) deorbit profiles or extended orbital profiles. That is to say, spent rocket stages and such tend to be rocketed into escape orbits or back into the atmosphere to breakup. Satellites are a bit harder to do this with, as, sometimes they end up using a bit more fuel than planned and, as such, may not be able to thrust into a proper disposal method. Of course, this is also regulated now so most (if not all) modern missions are required to take this excess fuel margin into account when being designed.
  
  Really, the big problem with the current space junk comes from orbital bodies that are decades old. Before things were regulated heavily in orbital operations, many satellite were just left to decay and breakup in orbit. As a result, we have a lot of detached thermal blankets and other clutter drifting around up there. There is also a large contribution that comes from nations which do not follow modern disposal regulations. The article mentions that China is one of these nations. There are others (such as Iran) but they are not contributing a whole lot because many space programs are still small.
  
  When it comes down to it, spacecraft disposal is a responsibility just like terrestrial recycling. The responsible thing to do is pay more and dispose of things correctly. Unfortunately, we didn't plan ahead from the get go and some people just prefer cutting corners.
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
16. Re:Push them further away by Lumpy · 2010-02-24 07:56 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Exactly, so we should build a gigantic ground based laser that can vaporize a school bus sized object in 1/4 a second. I want the beam to be 30 feet wide and blackout every city in a hemisphere when it fires. Heck make it powerful enough that it adjusts the earth's orbit due to the amount of photos being fired.
  Plus we can use it when the aliens get here all pissed off that we are cluttering up the lower EM spectrum with a lot of useless chatter.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
17. Re:Push them further away by Eudial · 2010-02-24 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  For the same reason we don't "just push" things into orbit.
  
  --
  GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
18. Re:Push them further away by wagnerrp · 2010-02-24 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  There have been at least two TV shows that I'm aware of.
19. Re:Push them further away by Shakrai · 2010-02-24 08:03 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  We should start sending all our garbage there.
  I agree, but how will we convince all 535 members of Congress to get on the space ship?
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
20. Re:Push them further away by Bakkster · 2010-02-24 08:11 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Not sure how serious you're being, but a laser could be used without needing to vaporize the entire object. A laser broom works by vaporizing just a small part of the object to create thrust and knock the object out of orbit.
  
  The laser broom is intended to be used at high enough power to punch through the atmosphere with enough remaining power to ablate material from the debris for several minutes. This would provide thrust to alter its orbit, dropping the perigee into the upper atmosphere, increasing drag so that the debris would eventually burn up on reentry.
  
  --
  Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
21. Re:Push them further away by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps send a man to space where it is his job to clean up the space junk. And during his downtime, make him watch cheesy movies (the worst we can find - lah lala). I have a feeling he will start to make robots and escape via a pod hidden in a crate of Hamdingers.
22. Re:Push them further away by insufflate10mg · 2010-02-24 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Aren't photons massless?
23. Re:Push them further away by SnarfQuest · 2010-02-24 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Space balls?
  
  --
  Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
24. Re:Push them further away by Cobble · 2010-02-24 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  We need the Matlock guy to get up there with Salvage 1 (remember that awful tv show?) and clean this mess up. But seriously, we should probably send up some unmanned garbage collection ship(s) to boost the stuff back into the atmosphere where it will *mostly* burn up on re-entry.
25. Re:Push them further away by berashith · 2010-02-24 08:21 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Promise them money for their district. It isn't like their actions aren't easily bought.
26. Re:Push them further away by jpmorgan · 2010-02-24 08:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Can we please never hear this idea ever again? Every time a hard waste disposal problem comes up, someone suggests throwing the nuclear waste, or decaying space debris into the sun.
  Throwing something into the sun would require a truly staggering amount of energy. It will never be a practical means of waste disposal.
27. Re:Push them further away by ajlitt · 2010-02-24 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Joel was a janitor in space. Roger Wilco, on the other hand, was a space janitor. Subtle, I know.
28. Re:Push them further away by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  Photons have zero restmass, but as they are always zipping about at lightspeed they have a relativistic mass (and/or impulse).
29. Re:Push them further away by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  I, for one, welcome our new robotic giant space magnet overlords.
30. Re:Push them further away by tbischel · 2010-02-24 08:27 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I think they normally push them into an orbit that will degrade so that they'll burn up on reentry. That takes less energy than putting them on a trajectory that leaves Earth's orbit.
  For those lofty orbits in prime real estate (think Geosynchronous), they do push satellites out further into a graveyard orbit. It would take about 1500 m/s deltav to deorbit from way up there, and only a fraction of that to just push it a little further out of the way.
31. Re:Push them further away by dziban303 · 2010-02-24 08:28 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  To give a satellite the ability to do any of these things, it must carry its own rocket motors and fuel - this increases the satellite's launch-weight, which in turn increases the fuel requirements of the booster.
  Actually, a rocket motor and fuel is not required. A cheap, easy, and--I hate to use this word, but--"free" form of orbital propulsion exists. Electrodynamic tether propulsion. Extend a conducting wire out from the spacecraft, and as it moves through the Earth's magnetic field, it can act as a motor or a brake like a normal electric motor. No fuel required.
32. Re:Push them further away by StikyPad · 2010-02-24 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Or vaporize it with a very powerful laser. Something like this, maybe.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
33. Re:Push them further away by MillionthMonkey · 2010-02-24 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe we could launch huge blocks of aerogel into low earth orbit. Or manufacture the aerogel in space. Carry a quantity of ethanol up along with a silicon alkoxide like tetraethyl orthosilicate. The astronauts can mix it up to create a big orbiting blob of SiO2 in a puffy aerogel form as the alcohol evaporates. Then as the orbiting paint chips or satellites whatever encounter this immense sponge of aerogel, they'll just punch a hole into it and bury themselves. The whole thing may need to be contained in a big garbage bag to avoid orbiting SiO2 particulates.
  
  We could launch a big cone with a flat top, pointing downward, and with a hard surface of some metal like titanium that won't flake or fragment. Pieces of crap can bounce downward after striking it and assume suborbital trajectories.
  
  We could set up a large ring or hollow tube with a reflective inner surface, equipped with a detector to watch for shit flying through, and with a huge laser that can blast it and vaporize it into harmless little particles.
  
  Maybe (since we know where a lot of stuff is) we can just blast the shit with a ground based laser someday. But it would be hard to do with visible light. We could send up a satellite equipped with X-ray lasers that vaporize the shit from far away in the vacuum of space.
  
  China's demolition derby in 2007 certainly didn't help, when they sent that rocket up for target practice on an old weather satellite in 2007 and blasted it into a million little pieces including 800 pieces of garbage with low orbit trajectories. But we could send up rockets made in China that deploy huge sponges or something before they hit targets, to avoid elastic collisions and end up with one piece of garbage with a suborbital trajectory.
  
  We could launch a large dumpster into space. Bring some garbage up from down here. Crap will fly into it and bury itself in the trash. Then a later flight can retrieve the dumpster so we can bring the space trash to the dump.
34. Re:Push them further away by WindBourne · 2010-02-24 08:37 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The majority of junk is from garbage breaking off from the separations, etc. The issues are not the old sats as many have been moved. The real issues are the SMALL ONES (size of nuts, screws, etc) that can come in at 30K mph (retrograde) and take out the ISS or a craft. Another biggie was China's recent anti-sat work. When they destroyed the weather sat, they sent LOADS of small scrape EVERYWHERE.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
35. Re:Push them further away by OglinTatas · 2010-02-24 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  The real problem is junk that doesn't have working thrusters and communications so that they can tell it to de-orbit.
  If the missile defense lasers ever become viable weapons, they might be used to ablate space junk in such a way as to change its orbit.
  
  --
  More music, fewer hits
36. Re:Push them further away by M8e · 2010-02-24 08:42 · Score: 0
  
  Just tell them that the world will be eaten by an enormous mutant star goat.
37. Re:Push them further away by mcgrew · 2010-02-24 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  A song at least.
  I'm a space cowboy
  Bet you weren't ready for that
  I'm a space cowboy
  You know you know where it's at
  Seems there were a few STNG episodes with aliens who harvested space junk.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
38. Re:Push them further away by mcgrew · 2010-02-24 08:46 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  When you abandon satellite, fuel tanks or anything else in the space, why not just push it floating further away in space? Let some aliens take care of them.
  Why should the foreigners have all the fun? And rather than pushing them into space, do what has been done for years -- push it towards earth and let it burn up in the atmosphere. Ten or so years ago I saw a remarkable a spectacular bright green shooting star, which I found out a few days later was a piece of space junk with a lot of copper the Russians had discarded from MIR. I'm all for space junk buring in the atmosphere, it's really a sight from earth.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
39. Re:Push them further away by Shakrai · 2010-02-24 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Throwing something into the sun would require a truly staggering amount of energy. It will never be a practical means of waste disposal.
  Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am) but don't you GAIN speed as you fall into the sun's gravity well?
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
40. Re:Push them further away by SBrach · 2010-02-24 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  Abandoned satellites and fuel tanks are only two examples of space junk. A lot of it is very small, such as the 480 million copper needles we dispersed up there to bounce radio waves off of in case the commies cut our undersea cables. The thing that many people don't understand is how much damage a small object like this can cause to a space craft. Here is a pic of what a flake of paint can do to the Space Shuttle, Linky. The velocities involved are hundreds or thousands of times greater than you experience driving your car and think of the damage a rock flying out the back of a truck can cause on the freeway. Especially if a crack in your windshield means you die.
41. Re:Push them further away by SeanGilman · 2010-02-24 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Then, you could create an autonomous robot to go out an collect the "small" debris
  WALL-E!!! Can I have one with my flying car please?
42. Re:Push them further away by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2010-02-24 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  When falling into Sun, you are exchanging potential energy for kinetic energy; however, you must first lose quite a lot of kinetic energy in order to fall *into* the Sun proper. A trifle amount, actually: you have to lose some 30 km/s or so first.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
43. Re:Push them further away by abbynormal+brain · 2010-02-24 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  I think it depends on the size of the garbage, but what about sending up a seek-and-destroy satellite that uses lasers to "push" garbage back into re-entry?
  
  --
  L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
44. Re:Push them further away by Chris+Burke · 2010-02-24 09:03 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am) but don't you GAIN speed as you fall into the sun's gravity well?
  Yes, and if we could just set the space junk in space with no momentum, the sun's gravity would be all we need.
  But any space junk launched from earth is starting with a solar orbital velocity of ~30km/s. Redirecting a rocket from that orbit into one that intersects the sun takes a lot of energy.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
45. Re:Push them further away by cyn1c77 · 2010-02-24 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  Throwing something into the sun would require a truly staggering amount of energy. It will never be a practical means of waste disposal.
  Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am) but don't you GAIN speed as you fall into the sun's gravity well?
  Yes, but to get things to accelerate into the sun, you need to get them off the Earth. This requires accelerating them to the Earth's escape velocity, which is where the staggering amount of energy comes in.
  It'd be like flying one bag of trash from New York to China on its own private charter jet.
46. Re:Push them further away by Chris+Burke · 2010-02-24 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  No fuel required.
  Minor clarification: No reaction mass required. Which is a pretty big deal. And can be fuel-free if you have another source of energy like solar that is sufficient, which I'm sure is what you were going for.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
47. Re:Push them further away by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 09:09 · Score: 0
  
  read "the marching morons" book there is hint on how to do it!
48. Re:Push them further away by VernonNemitz · 2010-02-24 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  We need a vacuum cleaner! http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Vacuum_20Cleaner#1133566372
49. Re:Push them further away by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 09:18 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  It'd be like flying one bag of trash from New York to China on its own private charter jet.
  
  Didn't that already happen?
50. Re:Push them further away by Tibia1 · 2010-02-24 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, similar to how those Russian robots went and pushed faulty satellites out into space. Probably not a big issue as we already could develop the technology probably if we really needed it.
51. Re:Push them further away by Tibia1 · 2010-02-24 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  It would be a waste of potential energy (we already process waste to work as a fuel) and a waste of potentially recyclable matter.
52. Re:Push them further away by Temujin_12 · 2010-02-24 09:21 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  About the only thing you get for free is atmospheric drag, and then only once your satellite is already low enough to run into the upper atmosphere.
  To give a satellite the ability to do any of these things, it must carry its own rocket motors and fuel - this increases the satellite's launch-weight, which in turn increases the fuel requirements of the booster.
  Someone correct me if I'm wrong (no, seriously, I'd like to know), but couldn't solar-powered gyroscopic thrust be cheaply incorporated into every launched satellite and be activated once the satellite's mission has expired and the satellite is no longer needed?
  Either way, we don't need rockets and fuel to deorbit satellites. We need cheap, reliable, low-mass, devices incorporated into payloads which can create a constant low-thrust for long periods of time. We don't need deorbits to be quick, we just need them to be predictable and fast enough to make way for new launches.
  
  --
  Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
53. Re:Push them further away by Brett+Buck · 2010-02-24 09:21 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I suggest we create a fleet of Ark ships. Elected officials get on Ark Ship #2.
  Brett
54. Re:Push them further away by BigSes · 2010-02-24 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am) but don't you GAIN speed as you fall into the sun's gravity well?
  I believe you would, eventually, but you would at least have to push past the Lagrangian Point where the Sun and Earth's gravitational pull is essentially the same on an object in space. This is somewhere around 4 times further as the Moon is from the Earth.
55. Re:Push them further away by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 09:29 · Score: 0
  
  The same way every other decision gets done: ask lobbyists to convince them it is in their best interests.
56. Re:Push them further away by the_hellspawn · 2010-02-24 09:31 · Score: 0
  
  Or we could just do what they did in Futurama in episode A Big Piece of Garbage (Season 1, Episode 8).
  
  --
  "The laws of science be a harsh mistress." --Bender
57. Re:Push them further away by wiredlogic · 2010-02-24 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, but how will we convince all 535 members of Congress to get on the space ship?
  Somehow, I think the solution involves telephone sanitizers.
  
  --
  I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
58. Re:Push them further away by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 10:10 · Score: 0
  
  so we should build a gigantic shark head based laser that can vaporize a school bus sized object in 1/4 a second.
  fixed that
59. Re:Push them further away by probityrules · 2010-02-24 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, there's already two guys up there cleaning it all up for us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fy7psIuJjc
60. Re:Push them further away by eln · 2010-02-24 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Only if you consider Druish people space junk...racist.
61. Re:Push them further away by Lloyd_Bryant · 2010-02-24 10:43 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Someone correct me if I'm wrong (no, seriously, I'd like to know), but couldn't solar-powered gyroscopic thrust be cheaply incorporated into every launched satellite and be activated once the satellite's mission has expired and the satellite is no longer needed?
  "gyroscopic thrust"???
  Gyros can be used to *rotate* an object in orbit, but unless they rewrote the laws of physics since I went to school there's no way to get "thrust" out of one.
  
  --
  Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
62. Re:Push them further away by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 11:06 · Score: 0
  
  The good news is, when the alien invasion fleet arrives, they'll crash into our space junk defensive field and solve both problems in one swell fwoomp.
63. Re:Push them further away by jpmorgan · 2010-02-24 11:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You're already in the sun's gravity well. And every little bit of matter in your body has been happily falling into the sun for 5 billion years.
  Orbiting is very much like flying in the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy: it's the art of falling towards a celestial body with enough speed that you miss it every time. You want to hit the sun? You've got to slow yourself down by about 60,000mph, otherwise you're just going to keep missing it every time.
  It's only slightly harder to fling yourself out of the solar system than it is to hit the sun and we've only managed that five times, I think.
64. Re:Push them further away by camperdave · 2010-02-24 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  You realize that the B ark people were the only ones to survive, right? Everyone else was destroyed by an illness contracted from an unsanitary telephone.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
65. Re:Push them further away by DerekLyons · 2010-02-24 12:32 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Actually, a rocket motor and fuel is not required. A cheap, easy, and--I hate to use this word, but--"free" form of orbital propulsion exists. Electrodynamic tether propulsion.
  Unless it takes up zero volume and zero mass, then it's not free.
  
  On top of which, the claim that it 'exists' is a shaky one, as while tethers are theoretically simple they've proven very hard to implement in practice. They're a long way from being proven technology and ready for prime time. Tethers also have significant drawbacks, the most notable of which is that they can't be used for attitude control.
66. Re:Push them further away by DerekLyons · 2010-02-24 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  The majority of junk is from garbage breaking off from the separations, etc.
  And the vast majority of that is old junk - because most spacefaring nations have required for over a decade now that separation not produce junk.
67. Re:Push them further away by sixsixtysix · 2010-02-24 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  or make them clean up their mess?
  
  --
  ...
68. Re:Push them further away by Stray7Xi · 2010-02-24 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  Gyros can be used to *rotate* an object in orbit, but unless they rewrote the laws of physics since I went to school there's no way to get "thrust" out of one.
  Have you tried ejecting it?
69. Re:Push them further away by strack · 2010-02-24 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  they bloody well should rewrite the laws of physics to allow that, you could have nuclear powered spaceships, that spin up gyros and dump the rotational inertia for reactionless thrust. damn symmetry.
70. Re:Push them further away by strack · 2010-02-24 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  to be fair, youd probably use another planet to sling you in the right direction.
71. Re:Push them further away by Ihmhi · 2010-02-24 15:52 · Score: 1
  
  If we can get over the issue of needing fuel, then yes.
  As I understand it we can turn solar power into motor power, so solar power is perfect for a rover rolling around on Mars. But no matter how we design it, I don't think we could put anything up into space that will be able to flail something around and turn it into usable momentum.
  When the day comes that we can make electric engines, i.e. turn stored electric into thrust, then a space barge will be a practical thing.
  Another way it could be done is taking a craft with powerful engines and essentially towing a carbon fiber net to catch stuff. Fishing for old satellites, as it were. From there it would be a matter of cracking the net back open in a degrading orbit.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
72. Re:Push them further away by SpaceCadets · 2010-02-24 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  *Paging Mr. Neelix!*
73. Re:Push them further away by samson13 · 2010-02-24 17:48 · Score: 1
  
  Photons don't have mass but they do have momentum. This leads to a photon or radiation pressure that is part of the idea behind solar sails.
  Unfortunately the amount of momentum for the energy is pretty small. E^2 = p^2.c^2 + m^2.c^4 m=0 big factor of divide by c. Most laser propultion strategies use solar panels + ion drives or ablation or something to accelerate a local mass to provide the change in momentum.
74. Re:Push them further away by Profane+MuthaFucka · 2010-02-24 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  the delta-V needed to get something into the sun is enormous. It's harder to do that than to send it to Mars.
  
  --
  Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
75. Re:Push them further away by jpmorgan · 2010-02-24 18:55 · Score: 1
  
  Sure. To make it economical you'd probably have to do something like slingshot around Venus, whiz out to Jupiter and slingshot back into the sun. Unless you could find an appropriate ITN lane, but I don't think the ITN connects the sun to any of the planets.
  Actually if it did, the ITN would be perfect for waste disposal.
76. Re:Push them further away by aetherworld · 2010-02-24 19:20 · Score: 1
  
  Still, it probably will be done some day. As soon as the risk (and associated cost) of sending rockets/satellites etc. into orbit becomes too great due to floating around space junk, they need to address the problem.
77. Re:Push them further away by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 01:05 · Score: 0
  
  No.
78. Re:Push them further away by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 02:08 · Score: 0
  
  Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am) but
  You are wrong. You are unfamiliar with the subject matter, and the practicalities. We are engineers, not teachers, so we have little inclination to teach you orbital mechanics today.
79. Re:Push them further away by PingPongBoy · 2010-02-25 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  This would provide thrust to alter its orbit,
  Sounds good. Could the altered course be somewhat random though?
  
  --
  Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
80. Re:Push them further away by Bakkster · 2010-02-25 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, but only to a degree. The thrust might be random within a 45-90 degree cone (numbers pulled out of my ass), making the exact orbit unpredictable. However, the shape of the new orbit will be predictably eliptic. By being careful when you use such a broom you could ensure that the probability of collision short-term does not increase, but that the long-term probability will drop to zero as the debris burns up in the atmosphere within several orbits.
  
  --
  Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
81. Re:Push them further away by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  But how many times have we *really* tried?
Options by Jeng · 2010-02-24 07:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

I wonder why this issue hasn't been fixed by now.
I can come up with quite a few ways that we could remove space junk, most aren't very good, but there is one I think would work the best.
Launch a couple satellites with solid state lasers. Heat up the side of the space junk facing earth and let the laser push it into the atmosphere.
Plus if you have a few dozen up there you could perhaps deflect larger objects, yet they would be useless if you wanted to shoot a target on the surface of the Earth.
There has to be a reason that there has been next to no attempt to control the space junk issue, I guess getting funding to clean up orbits is hard to come by.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
1. Re:Options by jtownatpunk.net · 2010-02-24 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  Where ya gonna get the energy for this [dr_evil_quotes]"laser"[/dr_evil_quotes]?
2. Re:Options by jimbolauski · 2010-02-24 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  But then space will be weaponized, no matter how much space junk you promise to clean up it still will be able to kill live satellites.
  
  --
  Knowledge = Power
  P= W/t
  t=Money
  Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
3. Re:Options by Jeng · 2010-02-24 07:46 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Solar panels.
  We're not talking a very powerful laser here, it doesn't have to be.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
4. Re:Options by Tetsujin · 2010-02-24 07:46 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I wonder why this issue hasn't been fixed by now.
  I can come up with quite a few ways that we could remove space junk, most aren't very good, but there is one I think would work the best.
  Launch a couple satellites with solid state lasers. Heat up the side of the space junk facing earth and let the laser push it into the atmosphere.
  Plus if you have a few dozen up there you could perhaps deflect larger objects, yet they would be useless if you wanted to shoot a target on the surface of the Earth.
  There has to be a reason that there has been next to no attempt to control the space junk issue, I guess getting funding to clean up orbits is hard to come by.
  There will be no concerted effort to remove space junk until the risk of collision with space junk rises to the point that it costs less to remove the junk than to risk being hit by it.
  It could be that this is some important idea in physics I simply don't understand... But how does a laser push an object into the atmosphere? What good does heating up one side of it do? How powerful of a laser do you need to significantly alter the trajectory of a piece of space debris? And how do you heat up one side of it if the object is spinning? (Which it almost surely is...) What happens if the laser misses? And if the object you're shooting at doesn't give off a diffuse reflection, how do you know if you hit or missed?
  
  --
  Bow-ties are cool.
5. Re:Options by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2010-02-24 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  A satellite such as you describe would be both tremendously expensive, and (quite justifiably) regarded as a weapon. And dealing with the amount of junk currently in LEO, we'd need not one such satellite, but a lot of them. There's also the problem of what counts as junk -- the US, Russia, and China certainly, and several other nations probably, have a number of satellites that have no public record of their existence, but which are very much active and functional. If anything the garbage-sweeping satellite doesn't have in its database is classified as "junk" and destroyed, it would end up taking these satellites down, and the owners might get ... testy.
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
6. Re:Options by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  We just have to get the people in control of the satellites to promise not to use them for evil purposes. That should solve the problem right there since everybody sticks to their promises :D
7. Re:Options by Jeng · 2010-02-24 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  If anything the garbage-sweeping satellite doesn't have in its database is classified as "junk" and destroyed, it would end up taking these satellites down, and the owners might get ... testy.
  Then have it work off of a white list of approved junk.
  Besides, I'm talking about something for knocking the little bits and pieces out of orbit, it would take quite a big hit or multiple lasers to knock a black ops satellite out of orbit.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
8. Re:Options by buchner.johannes · 2010-02-24 07:54 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The vast majority of space debris consists of small particles, from microns up to 1 centimetre (0.39 in). Although there are an estimated 100 million such particles in orbit, they represent a tiny fraction of the total mass of human-made objects in space: perhaps 1%. On impact, these particles cause damage similar to that from a micrometeorite and the widespread use of Whipple shields is effective against the damage they would otherwise cause. Many parts of spacecraft, however, cannot be protected with Whipple shields and are subject to constant wear and tear.
  As these sorts of smaller debris represent the minority of the mass, and cause little damage, much of the focus on space debris risks centres on larger debris. The exact definition of "larger" generally means "the size that can be tracked using current technology" and thus changes as tracking technologies improve. In general, these objects are on the order of 10 centimetres (3.9 in) or larger and mass from about 1 kilogram (2.2 lb) and up. Collision with a fragment of this size at the average speed of 10 kilometres per second (6.2 mi/s) would be catastrophic. As a result, space missions have to consider a number of operational factors and risk mitigation strategies.
  (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_junk)
  
  Launch a couple satellites with solid state lasers. Heat up the side of the space junk facing earth and let the laser push it into the atmosphere.
  Plus if you have a few dozen up there you could perhaps deflect larger objects, yet they would be useless if you wanted to shoot a target on the surface of the Earth.
  There has to be a reason that there has been next to no attempt to control the space junk issue, I guess getting funding to clean up orbits is hard to come by.
  How are you going to "push" objects that cross your orbit with 10 km/s?
  They have some solutions on wikipedia:
  
  [edit] Self-removal
  It is already an ITU requirement that geostationary satellites be able to remove themselves to a "graveyard orbit" at the end of their lives. It has been demonstrated that the selected orbital areas do not sufficiently protect GEO lanes from debris, although a response has not yet been formulated.[47]
  Rocket boosters and some satellites retain enough fuel to allow them to power themselves into a decaying orbit. In cases when a direct (and controlled) de-orbit would require too much fuel, a satellite can also be brought to an orbit where atmospheric drag would cause it to de-orbit after some years. Such a maneuver was successfully performed with the French Spot-1 satellite, bringing its time to atmospheric re-entry down from a projected 200 years to about 15 years by lowering its perigee from 830 km (516 mi) to about 550 km (342 mi).[111]
  Another proposed solution is to attach an electrodynamic tether to the spacecraft on launch. At the end of their lifetime it is rolled out and slows down the spacecraft.[112] Although tethers of up to 30 km have been successfully deployed in orbit the technology has not yet reached maturity.[33] It has also been proposed that booster stages include a sail-like attachment to the same end.[113]
  [edit] External removal
  The vast majority of space debris, especially smaller debris, cannot be removed under its own power. A variety of proposals have been made to directly remove such material from orbit. One of the most widely discussed solutions is the laser broom, which uses a powerful ground-based laser to ablate the front surface off known debris and thereby produce a working mass that slows the debris in orbit. With a continued application of such thrust, the debris will eventually spiral down into a low orbit and become subject to atmospheric drag.[114]
  The US Air Force worked on a ground-based design under the name "Project Orion".[115] Although a testbed device was slated to launch on a 2003 Space Shuttle, numerous
  
  --
  NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
9. Re:Options by TooMuchToDo · 2010-02-24 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Could we not just use power on Earth to use lasers on Earth to incinerate the debris? We already track the debris from the ground with radar, why not use ground-based lasers to eliminate it? I'm aware the laser would need to be more powerful (adaptive optics can be used to correct for the atmosphere) but you benefit from ground-based power, people, and equipment.
10. Re:Options by Jeng · 2010-02-24 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  There have been weapons in space before. Satellites have more to fear against ground based attacks than they would for a small scale laser in orbit.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
11. Re:Options by nedlohs · 2010-02-24 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  It could be that this is some important idea in physics I simply don't understand... But how does a laser push an object into the atmosphere?
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
  Plus if you can ablate material you'll get thrust from that.
12. Re:Options by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-02-24 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Launch a couple satellites with solid state lasers. Heat up the side of the space junk facing earth and let the laser push it into the atmosphere.
  So far as I understand, lasers require a large amount of energy to produce an appreciable amount of heat. That energy has to come from somewhere, like large solar panels. Large solar panels (or other large power sources) add mass and moment arms to your spacecraft. This requires a complex control system (reaction control wheels and computers) to damp out possible perturbations and maintain an accurate pointing of the spacecraft (crucial if you are going to be shooting high powered lasers at anything). A complex control system requires a powerful computer which eats more power and adds more mass. More mass increases the launch cost. Congratulations, you just designed a multi-billion dollar spacecraft/mission.
  
  Plus if you have a few dozen up there
  While buying in bulk does reduce the cost per spacecraft of the mission you are talking about, you can still do a rough multiplier and figure you have spent about $9 billion dollars on spacecraft design and parts alone (and to be honest, that is an incredibly low estimate). Add to that cost another few fudge factors for developing production facilities, testing facilities, paying for workers holidays and hours spent on slashdot. Now you have a terribly expensive mission (at least $10B). That's a lot of coin to come up with.
  
  I guess getting funding to clean up orbits is hard to come by.
  Yup. =)
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
13. Re:Options by MozeeToby · 2010-02-24 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Just keep the laser on the ground and use adaptive optics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics so that it remains coherent up to the junk you're trying to get rid of. You don't have to change the orbit much, just enough to drop the Perigree into the upper atmosphere which can be done by pushing the junk straight upward away from the Earth. It's called a Laser Broom, they've been talking about it to protect the ISS from debris for a while now but there's no reason it couldn't be applied to the larger problem of space debris in general.
  The main problem is that the power of the beam needed to do this contravenes the Outer Space Treaty, which bans laser weapons in space. Personally, I don't see how it applies since the laser itself would be on the ground, but that is what the wiki page says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_broom
14. Re:Options by CrimsonAvenger · 2010-02-24 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Launch a couple satellites with solid state lasers. Heat up the side of the space junk facing earth and let the laser push it into the atmosphere.
  Umm, if you turn a laser onto the side of the space junk facing Earth, the laser will push it away from Earth, not toward Earth.
  If you want to make it hit atmosphere, you want to push the leading edge of the junk, which will drive it into a lower orbit, and eventually into atmosphere.
  Note, by the way, that we have a Treaty forbidding the weaponization of space (hence FOBS), so this isn't really practical right now.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
15. Re:Options by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  I think it is just still easier to avoid it, or pretend it is not there. Clearly it doesn't happen that often, in spite of all the horror stories no ones has ever been hurt.
  Once it is a big deal, that will launch that big lazer. There are some prototype plans already, remember reading about this.
16. Re:Options by Chris+Burke · 2010-02-24 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  But how does a laser push an object into the atmosphere? What good does heating up one side of it do?
  Photons carry momentum. Not much, but they do. So, the laser itself can push the object. Heating one side so it emits more photons would push it as well. If it's spinning that's not much use, but the laser would still impart momentum.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
17. Re:Options by coolsnowmen · 2010-02-24 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  If you have enough energy to 'boil' the surface of the object (low pressure makes this easier but not trivial), then the local pressure difference is a differential force on the object. In this way, the laser appears to push an object in space.
18. Re:Options by Bandman · 2010-02-24 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  We'll just put them on a defenseless remote Pacific island and check up on them every year or so. Nothing bad will happen, I'm sure of it.
  
  --
  Check out my sysadmin blog!
19. Re:Options by wagnerrp · 2010-02-24 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  You need an absolutely massive amount of energy to vaporize something with a laser. The current concept of a 'laser broom' is to use the laser to ablate a small part of the debris, causing enough thrust in the opposite direction to eventually deorbit it.
20. Re:Options by Pinky's+Brain · 2010-02-24 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  10 km/s in freefall in vacuum shouldn't be too hard, and you can lock on the laser at a small lasing power and then pulse it while on target.
21. Re:Options by TooMuchToDo · 2010-02-24 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Use a laser on the ground reflecting off a mirrored satellite in a high enough orbit to sweep lower orbits. The laser power requirements are going to be huge, so best to use a ground-based power supply instead of trying to use solar power.
22. Re:Options by ctsupafly · 2010-02-24 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I work in a laser machine shop & we run several (5+) 50W lasers on a single 208V 100A bus. The small objects they talk about would be pretty simple to get rid of if they could be hit & the lasers themselves run around the $100k range. We manage to outfit 747s with lasers that track & destroy ICBMs, I think we can hit a bit of space junk if we put our minds to it.
23. Re:Options by roman_mir · 2010-02-24 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Just abstract the problem a bit from an existing special case.
  You see, we already take out certain things with laser when we want to while those things are in flight, so obviously, moving from the special case to a higher level general case, it should be possible to apply the same solution to other types of problems.
  The question is: do you have to glue mosquito wings to all of the pieces of junk floating around the Earth first or not?
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
24. Re:Options by Steauengeglase · 2010-02-24 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  The sad part is, if you wanted to clean up space, selling your method as a new weapons platform sounds like the only viable way to get funding.
25. Re:Options by Nadaka · 2010-02-24 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Umm, if you turn a laser onto the side of the space junk facing Earth, the laser will push it away from Earth, not toward Earth.
  That isn't really true.
  This is a simplification:
  At a given altitude a stable circular orbit can exist only for one velocity.
  Higher altitudes require a higher absolute velocity.
  Lower altitudes require a lower absolute velocity.
  Pushing the object higher without increasing its forwards velocity, it can no long remain in a circular orbit and its orbit will begin to deform, moving closer at perigee and farther at apogee. Once it is close enough for atmospheric drag to take effect, the object will loose forward velocity at perigee, this will rapidly being its apogee closer and closer and its orbit will decay faster and faster as more of its orbit is affected by drag.
26. Re:Options by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  are you mental? Particles flying in all different directions with 10 kilometers per second should be easy to hunt?
27. Re:Options by wagnerrp · 2010-02-24 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  Why would you have to be in a higher orbit? You ablate from the front of the debris to slow it down, not from the top to push it toward Earth. Pushing something towards Earth would simply add energy, and put it in a higher orbit.
28. Re:Options by TooMuchToDo · 2010-02-24 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Higher orbit = greater flexibility in how you're going to ablate the debris. It also doesn't hurt that you'll have less atmospheric drag.
29. Re:Options by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-02-24 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  We manage to outfit 747s with lasers that track & destroy ICBMs,
  747s have jet engines to produce power. You can't use a jet engine in space.
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
30. Re:Options by Jeng · 2010-02-24 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  With a laser in space, why not?
  It all depends on the distance the object is away from the laser, the further away, the easier to hit.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
31. Re:Options by Jeng · 2010-02-24 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, but solar panels work well in space. AFAIK though, the 747 is using a chemical laser which would not be suited to what I was thinking.
  Then again I'm not talking about something that can blow a hole in a satellite, just something to nudge the space junk with.
  The main point he was trying to make though is that we have the technology to hit an ICBM in flight with a laser that is mounted on a 747. That is pretty amazing on its own and is a type of technology that would be needed for what I am talking about.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
32. Re:Options by baKanale · 2010-02-24 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  But how does a laser push an object into the atmosphere? What good does heating up one side of it do?
  It was already mentioned in this thread, but a laser broom would do the job by burning off bits of a piece of debris, generating thrust and pushing the debris into an orbit with a lower perigee.
33. Re:Options by Tetsujin · 2010-02-24 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  Just abstract the problem a bit from an existing special case.
  You see, we already take out certain things with laser when we want to while those things are in flight, so obviously, moving from the special case to a higher level general case, it should be possible to apply the same solution to other types of problems.
  The question is: do you have to glue mosquito wings to all of the pieces of junk floating around the Earth first or not?
  Judging by the video, that system works by using the laser to burn up the mosquito's wings. The laser doesn't make the mosquito fall, however: it's the fact that the mosquito can lo longer use its wings to counteract gravity that causes it to fall. That's not how it works with satellites, however: something in orbit is already in free-fall. It's not doing anything to hold itself up, it's just moving according to its momentum and the effect of gravity.
  Likewise, if you had, say, a laser that could shoot down a missile: probably what this really means is that you've got a laser that can destroy some critical component of the missile, preventing it from detonating at the target site. If your laser can punch a hole in a missile, you've got a fair shot at rendering it inoperable. Maybe it'll fall back into the atmosphere, maybe it'll explode harmlessly somewhere, maybe it'll reach its target but with a non-functional warhead, or maybe it'll become another orbiting piece of space junk. But if you punch a hole in a piece of orbiting space junk, you've got... a piece of orbiting space junk with a hole in it. If you use the laser to cut the space junk in half, you wind up with two pieces of orbiting space junk.
  nedlohs provided some good answers to how a laser could exert force upon an object... I don't know how practical that is - I don't know how much energy is required, whether we have lasers that can direct that much energy at a target, etc. - but I don't know, maybe it's workable.
  
  --
  Bow-ties are cool.
34. Re:Options by CrimsonAvenger · 2010-02-24 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  This is a simplification:
  At a given altitude a stable circular orbit can exist only for one velocity.
  Higher altitudes require a higher absolute velocity.
  Lower altitudes require a lower absolute velocity.
  Umm, no. Higher altitudes require LOWER speeds. Lower altitudes require HIGHER speeds.
  Circular orbital speed is calculated as sqrt(rg), where r is radius of orbit, and g is local acceleration due to gravity. if R is defined as Earth's radius and G is Earth's surface gravity, then g = G(R/r)^2. Replacing this in the first equation gives orbital speed = sqrt(GR^2/r). Note that orbital speed decreases as r increases.
  Note also that orbital velocity is mostly incorrect. It is true that the direction of motion is relevant, but the "velocity" of an object in any orbit is constantly changing direction (and magnitude in all non-circular orbits).
  If you really want to be precise, use orbital elements instead of velocity.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
35. Re:Options by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 10:37 · Score: 0
  
  You do understand the difference between distance and speed? How are you going to lock onto an object appearing with 10km/s? Their orbits can't be predicted long-term
36. Re:Options by Nadaka · 2010-02-24 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  crap... I knew I should have gone back and done some fact checking. Its been way, way to long since I had to know orbital mechanics. Its just not something I get to use anymore.
37. Re:Options by Jeng · 2010-02-24 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  The further away the smaller the arc, the smaller the arc the slower the targeting mirror has to move making it easier to hit.
  Why could its orbit not be predicted long-term just because of its speed? There may be other factors, but speed alone is not it.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
38. Re:Options by roman_mir · 2010-02-24 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  Judging by the video, that system works by using the laser to burn up the mosquito's wings. The laser doesn't make the mosquito fall, however: it's the fact that the mosquito can lo longer use its wings to counteract gravity that causes it to fall. That's not how it works with satellites
  - you don't say?!
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
39. Re:Options by Tetsujin · 2010-02-24 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  - you don't say?!
  
  - you don't say?!
  
  - you don't say?!
  What was that about?
  
  He didn't say.
  
  --
  Bow-ties are cool.
40. Re:Options by khallow · 2010-02-24 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  I have a another suggestion: The US should stop pushing militarization of space, and EU/UNO should make a treaty.
  Not going to happen. And space debris will get worse even if some sort of credible demilitarization of space happened.
41. Re:Options by camperdave · 2010-02-24 12:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Pushing it towards the earth would increase the eccentricity of the orbit, allowing it to dip deeper into the atmosphere, where friction will bring it down.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Time to send up Quark! by techie42 · 2010-02-24 07:35 · Score: 1

Sounds like it is time an outerspace garbage man. Where can I apply for that job?
1. Re:Time to send up Quark! by Tetsujin · 2010-02-24 07:39 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Sounds like it is time an outerspace garbage man.
  Where can I apply for that job?
  I hear Technora Corp is putting together some kind of department for this...
  
  --
  Bow-ties are cool.
2. Re:Time to send up Quark! by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2010-02-24 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  Vacuum Cleaners, Inc.
  
  --
  
  ---
  ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
3. Re:Time to send up Quark! by MorderVonAllem · 2010-02-24 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  They are hiring.
4. Re:Time to send up Quark! by Idiomatick · 2010-02-24 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Won't be running til 2068 though :/
5. Re:Time to send up Quark! by Skelde · 2010-02-24 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Department Half ?
  
  --
  Insert sufficiently witty sig here.
or pull them back by Looce · 2010-02-24 07:35 · Score: 1

and reuse or recycle the parts.
1. Re:or pull them back by maxume · 2010-02-24 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  The energy required to lift an atmospheric shield into orbit would dwarf the energy saved by recycling the material (and the parts themselves are likely to be worthless after a service life in space).
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
2. Re:or pull them back by camperdave · 2010-02-24 07:57 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  We do exactly that. We let them burn up in the atmosphere, or crash into the ocean. The parts then get dissolved in the rain, or in the ocean water. The dissolved little bits get laid down on the ocean floor and riverbeds as mineral deposits. These mineral deposits get mined. The ore gets refined. New parts are designed, and voila, a few million years from now you get a shiny new starboard reticle articulation trunion. Why, the very reticle articulation trunions used on the shuttle Discovery were once part of a Jurasic era weather monitoring satellite.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Is it any wonder that junk in space is a problem? by Tetsujin · 2010-02-24 07:36 · Score: 1

If you think about it - with those crazy toilet systems and the fact that you're always trapped in those confining suits - really I think it's to be expected that space junk would be pretty awful.

--
Bow-ties are cool.
Perhaps.. by Bearded+Frog · 2010-02-24 07:41 · Score: 4, Funny

Could we just continue this trend and call it a shield against alien invasions? I for one welcome the trash shield.
1. Re:Perhaps.. by sbillard · 2010-02-24 08:20 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Not just a shield again alien invasion. It can reflect sunlight back into space before it's trapped by greenhouse gases. Bye bye global warming!
Can you say Wall-E by codgur · 2010-02-24 07:43 · Score: 1

Can you say Wall-E
1. Re:Can you say Wall-E by Idiomatick · 2010-02-24 07:56 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You mean planetes?
  
  http://www.kumby.com/planetes-episode-1/
2. Re:Can you say Wall-E by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  Did you say wooly? ..wool...wu...wool-y?
3. Re:Can you say Wall-E by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 12:15 · Score: 0
  
  You mean planetes?
  http://www.kumby.com/planetes-episode-1/
  
  I was thinking the same thing!
4. Re:Can you say Wall-E by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 22:16 · Score: 0
  
  You mean planetes?
  Easily the most charming Hard SF anime I've ever seen to date. Highly recommended if you like Hard SF and want to try some anime.
Who cares... by Superdarion · 2010-02-24 07:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

If companies don't hestitate to pollute rivers, seas, air and pretty much everything that could very well kill us right now, why would they think twice before polluting something we, as a civilization, have no regard for? Personally, I'd rather see them stop polluting Earth than low-orbit space.
1. Re:Who cares... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  Precisely, precisely.
  humans can't see long term effects of their short term actions - we are simply not wired that way.
2. Re:Who cares... by DerekLyons · 2010-02-24 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  If companies don't hestitate to pollute rivers, seas, air and pretty much everything that could very well kill us right now, why would they think twice before polluting something we, as a civilization, have no regard for?
  Because in the same way they aren't allowed to pollute the water or air or anything else anymore - they aren't allowed to pollute space. In most spacefaring nations, if you can't meet the regulations regarding junk production (short version: you aren't allowed to produce any), you won't be granted a launch license. Companies that can't get launch licenses don't stay in business, so they adhere to the regulations.
  
  Contrary to what hysterical articles and [mostly] ignorant [and hysterical] comments on Slashdot would have you believe, the vast majority of the junk in orbit is old. The West has been working to reduce the amount of junk produced for decades. Russia has come onboard with this as well within the last decade.
Mega Maid by Nos. · 2010-02-24 07:43 · Score: 1

This sounds like a job for mega maid:
"Suck, suck, suck!"
1. Re:Mega Maid by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  I got a job for you to suck right here, baby
We are past due... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 07:46 · Score: 0

We are past due for a powerful ground laser to atomize tiny orbiting debris in space! Build it already! Don't worry about terrorists taking control of the laser and blasting ground targets. Just secure it very VERY well. It's more important to get rid of this space junk that keeps increasing in abundance.
The area of space immediately around the globe by Finallyjoined!!! · 2010-02-24 07:46 · Score: 1

Is absolutely vast, even considering the common orbiting heights. A couple of thousand objects floating around (OK with their own intrinsic velocity) in such a ginormous area, isn't going to cause *that* many problems.

One would hope :-)

--
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
I thought space was a vacuum by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 07:47 · Score: 3, Funny

So why don't they just use it and clean up?
A head-on collision? by Jay+L · 2010-02-24 07:47 · Score: 1

When an unmanned satellite nearly hits an ejected rocket stage... what exactly counts as a head-on collision? Would it be safer if it was side-impact?
1. Re:A head-on collision? by Lumpy · 2010-02-24 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Considering orbital velocities. a single 1/8th inch ball bearing would rip through a Military armored humvee like it was tissue paper. so a booster stage.... would turn both objects into several hundreds of thousands 1/8th inch to 2 inch sized jagged particles and pieces that are all now going to spread out and turn into a satellite death cloud.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
2. Re:A head-on collision? by nedlohs · 2010-02-24 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  I really doubt that Chinese rocket was in a polar orbit, so this would be side-impact collision. But no it would make no difference at all to the total destruction of the satellite.
3. Re:A head-on collision? by mea37 · 2010-02-24 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  "what exactly counts as a head-on collision?"
  Direction of travel, one would imagine.
  "Would it be safer if it was side-impact?"
  In that less of the relative kinetic energy between the two bodies would be spent breaking them into smaller pieces, I suppose it might be marginally safer. That's a far cry from saying that it would be "safe", though.
4. Re:A head-on collision? by confused+one · 2010-02-24 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Would it be safer if it was side-impact?
  No. Orbital velocities result in extremely high kinetic energies. Any collision is likely to be catastrophic.
5. Re:A head-on collision? by Jay+L · 2010-02-24 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  "what exactly counts as a head-on collision?"
  Direction of travel, one would imagine.
  I never even took high school physics, but show me a two-body collision in which the direction of travel was not "toward each other"...
6. Re:A head-on collision? by Nadaka · 2010-02-24 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  it could also be more dangerous. With a head on collision, you are going to have a lot of inertia canceling each other out. I would bet that more of the material would de orbit with a head on impact than one at right angles.
7. Re:A head-on collision? by wagnerrp · 2010-02-24 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  A head on collision would be a spectacular impact at 14km/s, that would destroy both objects and spread a huge cloud of debris in all directions. A glancing collision would be a spectacular impact at under 1km/s, that would destroy both objects and spread a huge cloud of debris in one general direction.
8. Re:A head-on collision? by mea37 · 2010-02-24 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  'show me a two-body collision in which the direction of travel was not "toward each other"...'
  Why would I try to do that? It has nothing to do with what I said.
  "Head on collision" means the front of one object runs into the front of the other object. If the object doesn't have a definite front (as GGP was suggesting with the original question), then its leading edge (relative to its direction of travel) is the front. (Sometimes using the direction of travel to define "front" makes sense even if the object does have a definite front in other contexts, but that's beside the point.)
  I can certianly show you one object heading north and colliding with another that is heading east. Generally the front of one object will hit the side of the other - not a head-on collision.
  I can show you two objects both heading north, but with the leading object moving slower such that the trailing one hits it from behind. Again, not a head-on collision.
  But if the objects are heading in opposite directions, then the collision would be described as head-on.
9. Re:A head-on collision? by Chris+Burke · 2010-02-24 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  I never even took high school physics, but show me a two-body collision in which the direction of travel was not "toward each other"...
  No problem, since it's quite trivial. The 'O's below are traveling at a speed represented by the length of the arrows.
  O-------> O--->
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
10. Re:A head-on collision? by Jay+L · 2010-02-24 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  I never even took high school physics, but show me a two-body collision in which the direction of travel was not "toward each other"...
  No problem, since it's quite trivial.
  OK, I'm going to go take high school physics now.
11. Re:A head-on collision? by Chris+Burke · 2010-02-24 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  OK, I'm going to go take high school physics now.
  Hehe. Don't need physics for that one, just need to have rear-ended someone or been rear-ended. :)
  But take physics anyway! Newtonian mechanics is fun, fairly intuitive, and can even be pretty practical.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
how to fight the next world war. by Brigadier · 2010-02-24 07:48 · Score: 1

I always thought that with terrorists becoming the next mortal enemy the best way for an to fight woudl be to shoot a few rockets filled with #4 ball bearings into space. You kill communication (comm sat), mapping(GPS), and intelligence (spy sat), and force them to fight man to man.
1. Re:how to fight the next world war. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  Who would do this? Terrorists? To force someone to fight them man to man? Why would terrorists do that?
  Terrorists do NOT have the balls to fight man to man in the first place. Blowing up defenseless victims and attacking defenseless victims with firearms is more their style. Going toe to toe with someone on a equal footing is clearly not anything a terrorist wants to do because they end up getting their asses kicked.
Electrodynamic de-orbit tether... by BubbaDave · 2010-02-24 07:48 · Score: 1

Electrodynamic de-orbit tether, dammit.
Dave
1. Re:Electrodynamic de-orbit tether... by confused+one · 2010-02-24 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  Over 18,000 existing objects being tracked in Earth orbit by USAF, dammit.
2. Re:Electrodynamic de-orbit tether... by mfrank · 2010-02-24 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  Put into orbit a roll of Kevlar that unspools to be a thin sheet 20 meters long by a few kilomiters from top to bottom. Solar panels on top and a conductive loop around the perimeter so it can use the Earth's magnetic field to maintain orbit (or go into higher/lower orbits to avoid working satellites).
  Put it in a retrograde equatorial orbit with its surface plane parallel to its direction of movement to minimize drag. Any bits of debris that hit it will probably have a velocity vector such that all the collision debris will quickly fall out of orbit.
We need a recyling center by gurps_npc · 2010-02-24 07:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

We need to have someone up in space, collecting all this crap and recycling it. Even if it is just Sanford & Son style recycling, it costs way too much money to get mass up there for us to just throw it out and leave it there.
If something weighs 3 tons and is in orbit, someone should be able to take it up to the space station, bolt it down, and start wielding the holes shut.

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
1. Re:We need a recyling center by sabt-pestnu · 2010-02-24 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  As might be imagined, smaller items are more numerous.
  
  Space debris: The current equipment used to gather such information is only capable of tracking objects down to about 5 centimetres (2.0 in) diameter in low Earth orbit, and about 50 centimetres (20 in) in geosynchronous orbit. Out of the estimated 600,000 objects above 1 centimetre (0.39 in) diameter, only 19,000 can be tracked as of today.
2. Re:We need a recyling center by Skelde · 2010-02-24 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  I just watched a very good Anime about this issue.
  It's called Planetes, its about a Ragtag bunch off People that collect Space Debrie in the Year 2075.
  But there is a lot more to the Story than just collecting debrie,and it is actually very realistic in its presentation.
  I think it's very good SciFi, i can only recommend it.
  And to all the Anime haters, it's not just some kiddy show it's actually a pretty mature Story (not in the sense of nudity or what you might think). But i have to admit it also has its silly momments but nothing ridiculus. For example Some ex Helium-3 miners in LunarCity playing Ninjas, but the are actually rather tragic people. (actualy looks fun what the do wish i could do that)
  But anyway if you want to know more, google it. Im bad at Synopsys.
  
  --
  Insert sufficiently witty sig here.
Responsible by johncadengo · 2010-02-24 07:49 · Score: 1

As more and more of it piles up, I wonder, would they be legally responsible for their space junk and the damage it causes? When I was young and left toys out on the floor, I got in trouble whenever anyone stepped on it. Now older, if I left some nails on the road, surely someone would come looking for me.

--
My page.
1. Re:Responsible by compro01 · 2010-02-24 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  How are you going to determine who's junk is who's? Most of the danger is from anonymous little stuff like screws which can do an impressive amount of damage at orbital velocities.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
This is a job for! by RyanFenton · 2010-02-24 07:51 · Score: 1

Roger Wilco, SPAAAAACE JANITOR!
Really though - make a fund to fund the development of a janitor robot. Something small, light and cheap that can attach to junk, then lob it at other junk to destabilize the junk orbit while maintaining its own orbit. The folks working on "Star Wars" projects would already be there on several aspects.
Ryan Fenton
Tangled? by BigBadBus · 2010-02-24 07:51 · Score: 1

Thats a crap euphemism for collision!

--
My web domain.
Air Force Commercial by colmore · 2010-02-24 07:52 · Score: 1

Why not just maneuver out of the way like in that ridiculous Air Force commercial?

--
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
1. Re:Air Force Commercial by dadelbunts · 2010-02-24 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  Lmao i thought the exact same thing when i read this. We just need a bunch of young people sitting in a room narrowly avoiding space junk at the last possible second. Hell do you have any idea how many jobs this will create for the "playstation generation" already trained to do these exact tasks. Do something amazing!
Step 1: Ban space weapons by GodfatherofSoul · 2010-02-24 07:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Stop idiots from blasting satellites in space an creating even more debris. Stop other idiots from giving the first group of idiots a reason to blow up satellites.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
1. Re:Step 1: Ban space weapons by confused+one · 2010-02-24 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  Never going to happen. Space is high ground.
Re:The area of space immediately around the globe by Speare · 2010-02-24 08:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

A couple of thousand objects floating around (OK with their own intrinsic velocity) in such a ginormous area, isn't going to cause *that* many problems.
The odds of guessing your birthday correctly is roughly 1:365. That's dismal odds. The odds of picking the birthday of somebody in your household is slightly higher, because everyone in your family probably has a different day for their birthday; however, it's really really unlikely (barring twins) for there to be a COLLISION where two people share the same birthday. If you go to the pub or classroom, however, the chances of SOME PAIR of people with the same birthday skyrockets. In fact, you should bet that there WILL be such a collision in a group of only 24 people. If you played the game "are there two people here with the same birthday" in a few different classrooms, you'd easily win more than you lost.
Collisions of space junk is very similar, except (1) all the birthdays are continuously moving on the calendar as the pieces orbit, so it's like you're playing the birthday game over and over again, many times per second for decades, (2) you only need to win the birthday game once, and (3) you're playing with billion dollar satellites and astronauts' lives, not beer money. Do you really want to leave it to such odds anymore?

--
[ .sig file not found ]
I dont have to, you said it twice. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 08:01 · Score: 0

I dont have to, you said it twice.
Why not create an artificial moon? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 08:03 · Score: 0

Is it possible to create a mass that will attract all junk via gravity? If this mass (doesn't need to be BIG, just need to have a high mass) orbit around earth... it'll catch every piece of space junk at that altitude... no ? I don
Am I crazy?
1. Re:Why not create an artificial moon? by space_jake · 2010-02-24 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't that also affect all of the stuff orbiting the planet that isn't junk too?
2. Re:Why not create an artificial moon? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 09:20 · Score: 0
  
  I checked a bit and it appear that someone out there created an artificial gravity machine...
  so the "artificial moon" could turn on gravity when seeing junk, and turn it off when seeing a satellite...
  The best for the job could be the infamous Tractor Beam!! ;) perhaps in a few years lol
  after a few years you could even make this thing crash into the real moon, bringing materials they're for an actual lunar base!
3. Re:Why not create an artificial moon? by Sulphur · 2010-02-24 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Is it possible to create a mass that will attract all junk via gravity?
  Bombard the junk with black holes and ten pound fruitcakes.
Use gravity? by CFBMoo1 · 2010-02-24 08:04 · Score: 1

Why not setup some kind of sweeper objects to zip around up there and alter their trajectories so they eventually de-orbit faster and burn up? Kinda like how some of Saturn's moons shepard the rings?

--
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
there is no space junk "problem" by Jawn98685 · 2010-02-24 08:05 · Score: 4, Funny

A group of "industry scientists" has, they claim, shown conclusively that there is no "space junk problem". Moreover, they have shown that even if there is a problem, it is not man-made but is instead, due to natural changes that are cyclical in nature.
1. Re:there is no space junk "problem" by drooling-dog · 2010-02-24 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I was not aware of this problem when I was 12, and it was also unknown to my pappy and my grandpappy before him. Therefore, it must be a hoax by the vast conspiracy of liberal scientists, all trying to win grants in return for justifying government intervention in the junkosphere.
  Unless we're going to shovel money at the defense/aerospace industry to clean up this supposed mess. In that case it's of the utmost urgency and only a big blank check will do.
2. Re:there is no space junk "problem" by dadelbunts · 2010-02-24 10:11 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Hell and i could see the moon last night. If there is so much spacejunk how come i can see the moon. Answer me that.
How? by jayveekay · 2010-02-24 08:06 · Score: 1

Any nuclear armed country that wants to blow stuff up in space (whether to test satellite killing weapons, or just to grief the rest of humanity) is going to be able to do so.
There is No Space Junk by sexconker · 2010-02-24 08:07 · Score: 1

There is only low earth orbit junk.
I for one welcome our low earth orbit junk overlords.
For only by succeeding them will we ever be doing actual SPACE exploration.
Did anyone else imagine... by Hurricane78 · 2010-02-24 08:07 · Score: 1

...a giant penis in space, lacking a giant vagina? ;)
“Tangling” of those two objects might be exactly what we need. ;)

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
But what if the two objects had tangled? by laughing_badger · 2010-02-24 08:08 · Score: 1

I can answer that question: blood would have been spilt outside my office door. There's folks involved in both these missions with offices on my corridor :)

--
Help children born unable to swallow - www.tofs.org.uk
Re:The area of space immediately around the globe by Rand+Race · 2010-02-24 08:09 · Score: 1

*Any* problem like this would be disastrous due to the Kessler Syndrome.

--
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
Re:The area of space immediately around the globe by rotide · 2010-02-24 08:09 · Score: 1

True, however, there aren't many orbits that are useful (which you mention). Geosynchronous orbit, for example, is at a very specific altitude and speed. Put to much junk in that orbit or into an orbit that ends up passing through it and you have the potential to shut down all traffic in that orbit.
That's just one example.
You also have to understand the immense speeds things travel up there. Most of these items are traveling at faster than bullet speeds (6867+ mph for Geo Sync if my source is correct).
Point here is, very expensive things are sitting up there in a proverbial shooting gallery. A lot of open space works great when it's two people alone adrift on the ocean. It's entirely another when we're talking thousands of bullets zinging around.
Rfits by kenp2002 · 2010-02-24 08:09 · Score: 1

Has to me mentioned in the Rifts RPG at some point in the war someone launched effectively frag missles that turned everything in orbit into a high speed shredder locking out anyone off Earth and locking in everything on Earth. What it to prevent some lunatic rogue (yeah no makeup here!) nation from doing the same?

--
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
We need more funding for space elevators by JoshuaZ · 2010-02-24 08:10 · Score: 1

Space elevators http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator would help alleviate this problem since we wouldn't need to send up a lost rocket which pretty much every single launch. The other option is to build successor craft to the shuttle that are reusable and actually cost effective (at this point, it is essentially cheaper to send up most satellites using single-launch rockets rather than reusables). Each of these would help a lot in cutting down the space debris problem. Unfortunately, given human nature, the much cheaper cost of space travel that would come with a space elevator would likely result in a lot more disposable or poorly produced satellites which create more of a problem. Ultimately, the solution will likely rest on a combination of better technology and actual regulation of space debris just as we regulate most pollutants.
Nuclear... by nebaz · 2010-02-24 08:11 · Score: 1

Several high yield nuclear warheads launched to detonate simultaneously at a uniform high altitude, spread equally around the globe an equal distance around the globe to vaporize all the space junk in the upper atmosphere. No more space junk. What could possibly go wrong?

--
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
1. Re:Nuclear... by JoshuaZ · 2010-02-24 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Won't work. First of all, nukes don't actually do much in space unless they are very close by since the energy spreads out quickly. You won't even get decent size shockwaves since there is no atmosphere to shove out. Also, nukes high in space produce lots of electromagnetic badness that would probably fry the electronics on a lot of satellites. And if you could make nukes somehow large enough to actually deal with the space debris they would melt the satellites also. And again, you wouldn't ever get enough nukes to do this. A quick back of the envelope calculation shows that you would need around about 100,000 warheads assuming 10 megatons each (very rough estimate). The US arsenal is around 5000 nukes in total, most of which have yields much smaller than 10 megatons. There's nowhere near the resources for this to work.
2. Re:Nuclear... by c6gunner · 2010-02-24 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds fun. Just give me a few minutes notice so that I can pause my torrents.
Re:The area of space immediately around the globe by timster · 2010-02-24 08:13 · Score: 1

So what you're saying is, it won't happen to MY satellite, but I'll probably hear about it happening to somebody else's satellite.
That doesn't really sound like a big problem...

--
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Re:The area of space immediately around the globe by Sir_Lewk · 2010-02-24 08:13 · Score: 1

Applying the birthday problem to this only makes sense if you are considering the chances of space junk hitting anything else, including other space junk. We don't care if space junk hits space junk, we only care if space junk hits astronauts. (in other words, we only care if the space junk has the same birthday as the astronauts, not if space junk and space junk share the same birthday.)

--
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Re:The area of space immediately around the globe by rotide · 2010-02-24 08:17 · Score: 1

Actually, if one piece of space junk hits another piece of space junk, the net result will probably be more than two pieces of space junk. No, nothing of value was lost, however, now there is even more junk to worry about. The volume of junk may not have changed, but the odds of the new count of junk encountering something of value changes. However, I must note that it could _drop_ the chances if the orbits degrade because of the collision. But I have a feeling that's a futile point to get stuck on. The point is, junk encountering junk makes more junk to worry about.
ghetto dyson sphere by Sir_Lewk · 2010-02-24 08:18 · Score: 1

What I want to know is how much junk can we orbit before we have to start calling it a dyson sphere?

--
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
1. Re:ghetto dyson sphere by unknownroad · 2010-02-24 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think we are going to impress any alien civs with a Dyson sphere built around our planet. I think they tend to be more effective when encompassing the star.
2. Re:ghetto dyson sphere by RoboRay · 2010-02-24 18:29 · Score: 1
  
  Blotting out the sun from orbit would surely be an effective way to control global warming.
Apropos Anime by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 08:22 · Score: 0

PlanetES. It won the Seiun Award (Japanese science fiction award), centering around a space debris removal team. Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DakRYsUIiIE
....Another Man's Treasure by slick7 · 2010-02-24 08:23 · Score: 1

Ever since reading Gerard K. O'Neil's "High Frontier", I have thought about this very problem. My designs and concepts have been incubating since 1977. Encompassing space based and telepresence applications for collection, retrieval, disposal of used, defunct objects. Partially funded by reprocessing, reuse and insurance recovery fees. Case in point: The Italian space initiative centering on generating electrical power by towing a satellite behind the shuttle was lost when the spectra cable broke. LLoyds of London coughed up $400 million for that loss. The recovery fee was 10% of the insurance policy. The number of satellites in useless orbits or non-operational due to busted circuit boards are cherries "ripe for picking".

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Ablation Cascade by PseudoThink · 2010-02-24 08:28 · Score: 2, Informative

aka. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
Wall-E showed us the future by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 08:32 · Score: 0

I think we saw it clearly enough in Wall-E. That's the future that awaits us.
been proposed already... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 08:34 · Score: 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes
Trailer Trash by DarthVain · 2010-02-24 08:35 · Score: 1

Ya? Just wait til we put the Space Shuttle on blocks on our front lawn...
Then the Universe will know just what kind of neighborhood we have over here.
Devo predicted this in 1978 by Bookout · 2010-02-24 08:38 · Score: 1

I think science will also soon bear out their other famous theory, answering the question "Are we not men?"
1. Re:Devo predicted this in 1978 by daivzhavue · 2010-02-24 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Devo was right about everything.
  The future is now.
  
  --
  "A REAL computer has ONE speed and the only powersaving it permits is when you pull the power leads out of the back!"
Oooh a real life Salvage 1? by DigitalReverend · 2010-02-24 08:41 · Score: 1

Seems to me that the salvage laws of the sea should also be applied to space, and this could private industry in the space arena. Then we could have a real life Salvage 1.

--
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
1. Re:Oooh a real life Salvage 1? by jgtg32a · 2010-02-24 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  More likely closer to Planetes
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes
Yet another human-produced pile of trash by seniorcoder · 2010-02-24 08:41 · Score: 1

There is a mass of debris floating in the pacific ocean which I read was roughly the size of Texas. Newly discovered is a huge amount of trash floating in the Atlantic.
Can anyone be surprised that there is a mountain of trash building up in orbit?
We seem to befoul everything we touch.
We need more Burning man philosophy: leave no trace.
Dark Star by mollog · 2010-02-24 08:42 · Score: 1

Do you remember Dark Star?

--
Best regards.
1. Re:Dark Star by mollog · 2010-02-24 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Second attempt at a link; Dark Star
  
  --
  Best regards.
2. Re:Dark Star by abbynormal+brain · 2010-02-24 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  I was very young, but I remember:
  1. An annoying space alien
  2. The the crew of the spaceship looked like the early photo of the Microsoft crew
  3. Some dude getting sucked up by a sentient asteroid and becoming "one" with it.
  4. And someone who figured out that how you die is as important as how you live - and surfed on space garbage into the planet's atmosphere. ... yeah ...
  
  --
  L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
i predict by nimbius · 2010-02-24 08:46 · Score: 1

this problem will do one of two things:

1. become suddenly very relevant once we start losing shuttles and payloads to garbage related collision

2. aid in the inevitable tourist trap campy feel earth is to assume in the distant future, circa Cowboy Bebop.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
Re:The area of space immediately around the globe by Nadaka · 2010-02-24 08:49 · Score: 1

Not a problem, until the thousands of parts from two exploded satellites dramatically increase the odds of impact for everything that remains in orbit.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2010-02-24 08:50 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
The bright side by WinstonWolfIT · 2010-02-24 08:52 · Score: 1

The good news is that any potentially planet-smashing asteroid will probably take glancing blow off some orbiting engine block and miss our planet completely.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2010-02-24 08:57 · Score: 3, Informative

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Quark by snspdaarf · 2010-02-24 09:09 · Score: 1

What? No United Galaxy Sanitation Cruiser fleet mentioned yet?
Am I the only one that remembers the Bettys?

--
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
worse? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 09:17 · Score: 0

Telling us that an amount is good or bad doesn't tell us if it's increasing or decreasing.
Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 09:21 · Score: 0

Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Logic - where is it? by paxcoder · 2010-02-24 09:28 · Score: 1

Ok am I missing something - isn't space garbage small in comparison to the "orbit" - whose area is greater than the the surface of earth (seas combined) of course?
Perhaps everyone is firing up everything at the same spot... Chinese and Americans alike... I don't get it :-/
P.S. Speaking of trash, what stops us from sending ours towards the Sun or other stars or hot planets? They'd only burn/melt eventually as far as I can tell.
Re:Where is Al? by dreadlord76 · 2010-02-24 09:30 · Score: 1

We need a high priest for this new religion! Al can make his next $200 million on this! We must stop sending up more space junk! Let's spend 200 Billion so NASA can stop spending $20 billion on sending up Space Junk! Until we know how to stop plants from generating CO2, or figure out how to prevent Volcanic eruptions that spits out CO2s...
The Final Frontier by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 09:51 · Score: 0

To boldly pollute where no one has polluted before.
Re:What can be done about this. by jmauro · 2010-02-24 09:53 · Score: 1

5 won't happen for the same reason as 3.
You know the answer to this.... by cdrguru · 2010-02-24 09:54 · Score: 1

It is pretty simple, really. Without a significant space presence, orbital junk is just going to stay there and be a hazard. Building up a significant space presence would involve subjecting humans and expensive equipment to risk of collision with orbital junk. Exposing people to risk is a no-no, so this problem is obviously insolvable.
Since we aren't going to eliminate orbital junk, we better plan on putting less stuff in orbit. Less stuff would mean that eventually even the smaller fragments will deobit. This means that we can leave low Earth orbit clean of junk in several thousand years.
Simple, risk-free solution: stop sending stuff up into orbit and wait for thousands of years.
Right now, there is probably enough junk there to make any commercial exploitation of space somewhat risky. That means it isn't going to happen - nobody is going to give out insurance against people getting killed by junk in orbit.
what? really? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 10:05 · Score: 0

can we hold off on this regularly televised program until the plot is altered to say, "space junk getting better"? I mean, really, what has improved since the last time?
-l
electromagnetic drag device by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 11:01 · Score: 0

It takes energy to send a satellite up into a higher orbit, and even more to push it out of Earth orbit entirely...
For that matter it also takes energy to shift a satellite to a lower orbit, too. About the only thing you get for free is atmospheric drag, and then only once your satellite is already low enough to run into the upper atmosphere.
To give a satellite the ability to do any of these things, it must carry its own rocket motors and fuel - this increases the satellite's launch-weight, which in turn increases the fuel requirements of the booster.
Nope. You only need a decent amount of coil and a compressed spring to create an electromagnetic drag device.
It does add some weight, but probably a lot less than fuel and rockets.
Watch Planetes by Daevad · 2010-02-24 13:17 · Score: 0

Watch the Anime series "Planetes" to see a well thought out look at the future of the problems with space junk. The DVD extras include discussions with NASA folks.
Solution by Dthief · 2010-02-24 13:44 · Score: 0

Space elevator + guys picking up trash on the highway = clean space

--
www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
Aliens by p51d007 · 2010-02-24 13:59 · Score: 1

Space junk is why aliens don't visit Earth. They pull up next to our blue marble, see all the space junk, and say skip it...if it looks like this out here, imagine what it looks like down there. LOL
Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-24 19:29 · Score: 0

List the space junk in the free section of craigslist. It will be gone before the end of the day. Problem solved.
Magnets and Vaccums by KidShaft · 2010-02-25 01:11 · Score: 1

How about a giant space magnet or a really big vaccum? That's how I pick up crap from hard to reach places, like behind the freezer.
I guess it would depend on... by hesaigo999ca · 2010-02-26 03:38 · Score: 1

I guess it would depend on...the fact that we can not compare a collision as we know it on earth to be the same as in space, mass, and weight and internal gravity as well as density of the metal on the outside of the hull.
It would all play a small role, they might just bounce off each other and be off course, or they could totally be destroyed in a great ball of flame. I think we might have to test this out someday.
What did I step in? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 04:19 · Score: 0

first of all, someone needs to gather all of the junk first. Maybe in several nets or a remote electomagnetic robotic pooper scooper. that way you dont have to pay someone extra for working in a hazardous environment. You know if you threw something to the sun (hypothetically) there would be some sort of monstruous solar flare that would wipe out power on earth.(hypothetically) When you mess with the balance of the universe, there is always a negative consequence. Its always like that. Maybe it wouldnt be noticed right away, but scientist will blame it on someone. Then there would be another study disclaiming the previous one! Can't we all just get along! ROD-NEY KING!
Why would it be getting better? by XCondE · 2010-02-26 12:27 · Score: 1

There is no incentive to remove the equipment you put in orbit. Sending it up is costly enough - why bother removing? Perhaps we're now reaching the threshold where funding the clean-up makes sense.
This is not news. It's stating the obvious.