Aussie Lasers To Stop Satellite Collisions, Death

bennyboy64 writes "An Australian company is developing a laser tracking system that will help prevent collisions between satellites and space debris, ZDNet reports. 'The trouble is it's [debris] in orbit and travelling at orbital speeds, which means that it is travelling at about 30,000 kilometres an hour," said the CEO of the Australian company. 'If even a tiny little piece runs into a satellite it'll destroy it or punch a hole through a person if they're out there space walking.'"

Comments

Say What?

[damn_registrars]

The Australians have a laser than can stop death? Now that is news I can use! Where can I get one?

Re:Say What?

[ozmanjusri]

Where can I get one?

They're attached to the heads of our sharks.

Re:Say What?

[Dutchmaan]

Darth Vader hates the sound of "The Life Star"

Re:Say What?

[mcgrew]

They already have lasers that can often stop death. You'll find them in hospitals; lasers are used in all sorts of surgeries. My retina specialist used one on me that stopped blindness, although I later had to undergo traditional surgery (a vitrectomy) when the retina detached. I journaled about it here.

Sharks with frickin' laser beams!

[euroq]

Wow, sharks with frickin' laser beams are in space, saving humanity from impending doom!

Re:Sharks with frickin' laser beams!

[deniable]

Not the sharks, we prefer to ride crocs with laser beams.

Re:Sharks with frickin' laser beams!

[shadowblaster]

I'm sure you meant kangaroos with frickin' laser beams!

Re:Sharks with frickin' laser beams!

[MichaelSmith]

I'm sure you meant kangaroos with frickin' laser beams!

Kangaroos with LEDs would cut the country road toll. You just need some of those power generators which slide a magnet through a coil.

Like radar, but shorter wavelengths

[MichaelSmith]

Electro Optic Systems' laser technology, with the help of a federal government grant, will enable the Mount Stromlo observatory in Canberra to track space junk and sell the data it collects to satellite owners and companies like NASA.

Reading the summary I had hopes they had a laser rocket thing worked out: you heat the leading edge of a bit of space junk. Gas comes off that side and pushes the fragment backwards so it re-enters the atmosphere. But no. Its just a better way to detect the particles.

Re:Like radar, but shorter wavelengths

[MichaelSmith]

More importantly, it's not a satellite owner.

NASA has lots of assets in low earth orbit.

Re:Like radar, but shorter wavelengths

[Anonymous Coward]

to track space junk and sell the data it collects to satellite owners and companies like NASA

*on phone* Hello, NASA? Hi, I'm ******** at the Mount Stromlo observatory in Canberra. We've just detected several objects on a collision course with the manned space station. We can provide you with a safe trajectory to avoid what will otherwise certainly be a catastrophic and fatal collision, but first, how much is that information worth to you?

Of course, it could be worse:

*on phone* Yo, NASA! Listen, this is Vinnie callin from Brooklyn. My associates at tha observahtory in Sicily tell me that there might be some flyin space debris or some shit headin towards ya station. I'd like to sell you some infamation to prevent anythin bad from happenin to it, what with the future of science dependin on it an all. I mean, you wouldn want another one a dem Columbia disastas on ya hands, now would ya?

Re:Like radar, but shorter wavelengths

[c0lo]

Electro Optic Systems' laser technology, with the help of a federal government grant, will enable the Mount Stromlo observatory in Canberra to track space junk and sell the data it collects to satellite owners and companies like NASA.

But no. Its just a better way to detect the particles.

Huh? Not event that, mate, for the time being is manual. From TFA:

"It's still a manually operated system, so this grant will transition us to commercial operation and automate that whole system so it can actually run unattended," Smith said.

Yeah, sure I imagine that there is actually some automation in place, but... if left only to imagination... is also funny to imagine a person using a laser pointer to search/detect junk in space (TFA doesn't say a word how they a conducting the search/tracking using the laser!)

Re:Like radar, but shorter wavelengths

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Lasers of that power are certainly more expensive than the lower-power tracking variety; but I suspect that the major stumbling block would be political.

There are, for instance, a number of influential entities with rather expensive satellites continually exposing fancy CCDs through even fancier optics. A laser powerful enough to blow vapor off of space junk, focused through the sort of optics used in ground surveillance satellites, shining on a piece of silicon specifically designed to be light sensitive. Yeah, that'd make the National Reconnaissance Office really happy...

Re:Like radar, but shorter wavelengths

[c0lo]

The question is whether your system can work fast enough to actually capture more particles that way?

This is where the analogy with the TatsLotto serves. Either way: play always you favourite numbers (keep thye beam in the same position) or change them from one game to the other (sweep the sky), the probability to win is the same if you play a single ticket (using a narrow beam).
Granted, if you know a region where is more probable to find what you are looking for, the analogy with Lotto stops. But also exploring only in a certain region will make you prone to miss other debris that may knock down a satellite of your customers.

I reckon that using a slightly divergent beam (even better, a divergence controlled one) would improve the chances better than narrow-beam sky-sweeping method (not that the two methods are exclusive).

Re:Like radar, but shorter wavelengths

[ae1294]

More importantly, it's not a satellite owner. I guess the budget's only for hookers and blow.

NASA has lots of assets in low earth orbit.

Woah, NASA has hookers and blow in low earth orbit? Damn it someone send up the black-jack tables STAT and we'll have ourselves a profitable endeavor...

Asteroids!

[evil_aar0n]

Sounds like the old Asteroids game. If they're looking for volunteers, I'd be happy to put my years of experience to good use.

Re:punch a hole through a person?

[MichaelSmith]

Are they just making shit up or what? 30,000 mph is relative to the ground. Anything orbiting with be near that speed, including the space men. Someone tell me I'm wrong, and please tell me why. It seems to me the relative velocities would be small.

The particles you collide with could be in the same orbit but going the other way, though this is unlikely. More likely they could be in a different orbital plane so they sideswipe you at significant speed, or in an orbit with a different eccentricity so they have a decent relative velocity. Many particles cross each others paths with the speed of a fast bullet.

Not always orbiting in the same direction

[zooblethorpe]

Sure, 30,000 mph is relative to the ground. The velocity of a piece of space junk relative to an astronaut could well be 60,000 mph if it's going the other way round. Even if both junk and astronaut are orbiting west-to-east, they could be on divergent ellipses. So collision speeds could go anywhere from 0 to 60,000 mph. Heck, I'm pretty sure that a collision at a velocity difference of "just" 1,000 mph would hurt.

Cheers,

Re:punch a hole through a person?

[c0lo]

It seems to me the relative velocities would be small.

If the trajectories are sort-of aligned, which doesn't need to be. I think you can imagine two bodies orbiting in opposite senses or on polar/equatorial orbits: the problem of resolving the relative velocity is left as a homework.

Not at All

[MacGyver2210]

"track space junk and sell the data it collects to satellite owners and companies like NASA"

So, basically, it doesn't *do* anything. They use it like...oh, a telescope or something, and then *sell* their observations.

Yippee. Shouldn't a project funded by federal grants not be eligible to sell their findings but be required to provide them freely to the public? Seems a little wrong to me.

Re:Not at All

[MichaelSmith]

"track space junk and sell the data it collects to satellite owners and companies like NASA"

So, basically, it doesn't *do* anything. They use it like...oh, a telescope or something, and then *sell* their observations.

Yippee. Shouldn't a project funded by federal grants not be eligible to sell their findings but be required to provide them freely to the public? Seems a little wrong to me.

CSIRO patents their discoveries and sells licenses to use them. This doesn't seem very different to me.

Re:Can't we just accrete the stuff

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Orders of magnitude less dense, and considerably less cooperative.

There are certainly a few large bits and pieces that could probably be of great use to, say, hypothetical Mars explorers(the ISS, maybe a few of the larger junk satellites or upper rocket stages); but the overwhelming majority of the stuff is tiny little bits and pieces, zipping around at horrid velocities in a variety of orbits across a vast volume of space. By comparison the (fairly tenuous and soupy) Pacific garbage patch is practically solid, and it is all more or less sitting there, just waiting to be scooped up, rather than zooming around(plus, life is much easier when you can get your capture apparatus shipped in by boat, rather than by rocket).