Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Space Junk Getting Worse

Posted by ryuzaki0 on 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."

42 of 242 comments (clear)

  1. Push them further away by sopssa · · 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 · · 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 crow · · 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.

    3. Re:Push them further away by ircmaxell · · 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
    4. Re:Push them further away by Tetsujin · · 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.
    5. Re:Push them further away by EchaniDrgn · · 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!

    6. Re:Push them further away by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Funny

      That wouldn't take much fuel or anything...

    7. Re:Push them further away by BJ_Covert_Action · · 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!
    8. Re:Push them further away by Lumpy · · 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.
    9. Re:Push them further away by Shakrai · · 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.
    10. Re:Push them further away by Bakkster · · 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!
    11. Re:Push them further away by berashith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Promise them money for their district. It isn't like their actions aren't easily bought.

    12. Re:Push them further away by jpmorgan · · 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.

    13. Re:Push them further away by tbischel · · 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.

    14. Re:Push them further away by dziban303 · · 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.

    15. Re:Push them further away by WindBourne · · 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.
    16. Re:Push them further away by mcgrew · · 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!
    17. Re:Push them further away by Chris+Burke · · 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
    18. Re:Push them further away by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    19. Re:Push them further away by Brett+Buck · · Score: 3, Funny

      I suggest we create a fleet of Ark ships. Elected officials get on Ark Ship #2.

            Brett

    20. Re:Push them further away by Lloyd_Bryant · · 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.
    21. Re:Push them further away by jpmorgan · · 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.

    22. Re:Push them further away by DerekLyons · · 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.

  2. Options by Jeng · · 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 Jeng · · 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.
    2. Re:Options by Tetsujin · · 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.
    3. Re:Options by buchner.johannes · · 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.
    4. Re:Options by camperdave · · 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!
  3. Re:Time to send up Quark! by Tetsujin · · 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.
  4. Perhaps.. by Bearded+Frog · · 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 · · 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!

  5. Who cares... by Superdarion · · 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.

  6. I thought space was a vacuum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    So why don't they just use it and clean up?

  7. We need a recyling center by gurps_npc · · 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
  8. Step 1: Ban space weapons by GodfatherofSoul · · 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!
  9. Re:Can you say Wall-E by Idiomatick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You mean planetes?

    http://www.kumby.com/planetes-episode-1/

  10. Re:or pull them back by camperdave · · 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!
  11. Re:The area of space immediately around the globe by Speare · · 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 ]
  12. there is no space junk "problem" by Jawn98685 · · 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 dadelbunts · · 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.

  13. Ablation Cascade by PseudoThink · · Score: 2, Informative

    aka. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion