9 Ideas For Coping With Space Junk

Hit or Miss by teeks99 · 2010-08-31 06:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

That Discover article was pretty hit-or-miss. They nailed the real solution in two of their pieces (tethers and sails), in that the best (easiest, cheapest, only-one-that-will-probably-ever-happen) are technologies that are built into space objects (satellites and boosters) before launch. There's lots of options here from tethers, sails, balloons, or just using existing thrusters. If we can stop leaving big pieces up there (which can run into other big pieces and make LOTS of pieces), the problem will start getting less severe.

On the other hand, on of Discover's pages was about blowing up the debris...this makes sense, until you really think about it. The problem is that when you blow up something, it makes a huge number of new pieces, with all sorts of different velocities and orbits. On average, these pieces will fall to earth more quickly than the unexploded satellite, however, that's just the average. There are many pieces that will stay up there even longer. And when you're talking about things moving that these incredible velocities, it doesn't matter a whole lot if you get hit by a 6,000lb. satellite or a 5lb. piece of a satellite, either one will destroy anything we've put in orbit.

Re:Hit or Miss by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-08-31 07:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

That Discovery article was a total waste of time. It really had little to do with "9 ways of dealing with space junk," and was more along the lines of "9 things that are kind of related that we want to talk about." As you mentioned, a couple of its nine methods of dealing with space junk could really just be grouped into the general theme of, stop putting more up there (deorbit your crap at end of mission). There were only three methods that actually discussed getting rid of existing junk: lasers in space, balls of aerogel to capture stuff, blowing up large chunks of junk. For what it's worth, the exploding method that you mentioned discussed only conducitng such methods at low altitudes which actually does work really well. However, it still leaves a lot of unaddressed crud in the higher LEO bands (like the one the ISS is in). The aerogel glob discussion was also an interesting one, but as the article addressed, aerogel can only really handle tiny stuff like paint chips. The lasers in space is probably the most effective solution, but costs so much in terms of energy generation that it is still a ways off in any large scale deployment.

So what else did the article discuss? Well it mentioned the Kessler effect, which has nothing to do with dealing with space junk, but is just a model used to describe space junk. It mentioned that NASA is now putting more efforts into tracking space junk. This is important, of course, but doesn't qualify as a method for removing it or handling it (excepting the very indirect means of simply avoiding it). Then it talks about shielding spacecraft from space junk. This, of course, is necessary and current practice, but no amount of shielding (presently) will protect you from detached thermal blankets or burnt out Delta stages.

All in all, this article just seemed like a disorganized, loosely-themed, terse ramble. I usually expect better from Discover but was severely disappointed in this particular release.

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Re:Hit or Miss by Maury+Markowitz · 2010-08-31 07:11 · Score: 0

> like equipping every satellite with a high-tech kite tail for deployment once the satellite is defunct ... which increases the mass and size of the satellite, which increases the spalling damage if it does get hit by debris. I'm not convinced this is a good idea.
Maury
Re:Hit or Miss by ComputerInsultant · 2010-08-31 07:24 · Score: 2, Informative

What a waste. Even the first page has an obvious error:

the tool kit dropped by astronaut Heide Stefanyshyn-Piper during a spacewalk in 2008
That tool kit re-entered the atmosphere in August of 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidemarie_Stefanyshyn-Piper#Lost_tool_bag_during_spacewalk Come on guys. Do some fact checking.

--
engineers are all basically high-functioning autistics who have no idea how normal people do stuff
Re:Hit or Miss by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 08:19 · Score: 0

Good grief, people still sign posts in 2010? Your login name is right there! Do you also say "over" and "10-4" when talking on a cell phone? Jeez.
Re:Hit or Miss by instagib · 2010-08-31 08:24 · Score: 1

Using Wikipedia for fact checking. Pity there's no "ironic" mod.
No reason for that mod if the Wikipedia article has credible references.
(Yeah, I know I shall not feed 'em, but it's a often seen criticism.)
Re:Hit or Miss by izomiac · 2010-08-31 09:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

On the other hand, on of Discover's pages was about blowing up the debris...this makes sense, until you really think about it. The problem is that when you blow up something, it makes a huge number of new pieces, with all sorts of different velocities and orbits.
Most problems with lasers can be solved by higher power lasers. Just increase the power output and decrease the delivery time until you can turn any debris you target completely into gas or plasma. For larger objects, target a non-rotating point so it'll turn to gas and push the object out of orbit.
Re:Hit or Miss by daisybelle · 2010-08-31 11:09 · Score: 1

The problem is that when you blow up something, it makes a huge number of new pieces, with all sorts of different velocities and orbits.
Well, yes, but putting it in a Last Starfighter perspective, those of us who played Asteroids in the 80s have loads of practice at shooting space junk into smaller and smaller pieces... although judging by my attempts just now on http://www.classicgamesarcade.com/game/21612/Asteroids.html I don't think that I personally am the chosen one.

--
"You only get ONE LIFE." Richard Rahl, Faith of the Fallen - Terry Goodkind
Re:Hit or Miss by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 11:37 · Score: 0

You might want to look "terse" up in a dictionary.
Re:Hit or Miss by icebike · 2010-08-31 11:40 · Score: 1

As explained in the first couple slides, blowing up spent vehicles in low orbit forces them to re-entry almost total within one week.
The problem is the debris fields caused by accidental collisions and large clouds of debris caused by high orbit destruction. These stay up there for a very long time.
But the article is far too heavily focused on prevention by building in de-orbit mechanisms, with too little attention paid to recovery of objects already in orbit.
Clearly we will not be able to gather every nut and bolt.
But there are a lot of objects we could perhaps catch, and attach solar sails, or small deorbiting rockets, and bring them down to lower orbits. While expensive, this sounds better to me than waiting till their orbit decays.
This would have to be done by automated means, robots, to be cost effective, and maybe some really low-tech means would serve to capture these vehicles (nets, grapples, entangling cords) long enough to slow them enough to induce re-entry.
The current practice when a satellite gets near its end of life is to push it to a higher orbit with its last little bit of fuel and hope for the best. Perhaps there should be an agreement to push these dieing vehicles lower with the intent of re-entry as soon as possible. If that re-entry looks like it will put population at risk, then the low orbit blowing up can reduce it to harmless sized.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:Hit or Miss by FinalMidnight · 2010-08-31 12:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

I wonder at the effectiveness of putting a very large focusable solar reflector in a high orbit, perhaps at LaGrange point 1. Such a solar sail could be used to give thrust to satellites equipped with a sail, or even large bits of space junk. Obviously it wouldn't give much Delta V to junk, but it might give some, and it would be essentially free. Junk in high orbits takes hundreds or thousands of years to de-orbit, and any means of reducing the velocity of said junk would drastically reduce that time. Additionally, with a variable focus the mirror might be pointed at solar cells of existing satellites, which could improve the thrust gained from Ion Drives, assuming enough reaction mass remains to take advantage of the extra watts.
Idle musings. Feel free to shoot me down.

--
In the maelstrom of the chaos at the center of my mind, I taste the salt of sadness as I feel my soul unwind.
Re:Hit or Miss by izomiac · 2010-08-31 12:56 · Score: 2, Informative

Yes, and the first layer of ionized atoms will scatter the rest of the laser energy, and push on the object... Sigh, you Space Loons are a big, fat ZERO when it comes to reality. Again. THIS AIN'T STAR TREK.
Assuming iron, so M = 55.845, Vaporization point: 3134K, Melting point: 1811 K, Heat of fusion: 13.81 KJ/mol, Heat of vaporization: 340 KJ/mol, Specific heat capacity: 25.10 J/mol/K

v(rms) = (3RT/M)^.5
v(rms) = 37.4 m/s
Assuming you want the laser focused over 4 cm for a 3 cm object:
t = x/v = .5 cm / 3740 cm/s = 134 us

For a 3 cm sphere:
V = 4/3*pi*r^3 = 113 cm^3
m = Vd = 113 cm^3 * 7.874 g/cm^3 = 890 g
890 g / 55.845 g/mol = 16 mol
16 mol * (25.10 J/mol/K * 3134 K + 13810 J/mol + 340000 J/mol) = 7 MJ

So, a 7 MJ burst in 134 us, or 52 GW (roughly, I didn't deal with liquid heat capacity/expansion properly). The most powerful lasers currently in existence are measured in the petawatt range, and an exawatt laser is in the works. That puts us 5 - 8 orders of magnitude higher than what we'd need to fully vaporize a 3 cm ball of iron before the gas had a chance to disperse. While there might be some scatter, you'd still be heating up the ~4 cm ball of gas (the highest energy gas molecules would be > 1 cm away, but that's the point of the whole exercise). I've taken some liberties with the math, but nothing you can't hand-wave away with up to 5 orders of magnitude above the calculated need.

In other words, the "first layer of ionized atoms" don't form a deflector shield that completely scatters laser energy. The center of mass isn't going to warp away faster than the gas can even expand, and it would still just be pushing the object away in the direct path of the laser. This isn't a spaceship battle, you don't fire the laser for 3 seconds at a time.
Re:Hit or Miss by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 18:42 · Score: 0

I'll plan the typical, dumb american...
Can we nuke that debris? Would it be safe to detonate a nuke in leo? Would it vaporize large swaths of junk? Is it even an affordable solution?
Re:Hit or Miss by chromas · 2010-08-31 21:41 · Score: 1

Dear Mr. and/or M(r/is)s. AC,

Roger that! 10-4 good buddy; over and out!

Sincerely,
Me

Dictated but not read
Re:Hit or Miss by sznupi · 2010-08-31 22:37 · Score: 1

Though that assumes extremelly rapid heat transfer across the ball; I guess with such short pulses it might as well largely melt at most / with some plasma forming on the side of impact? With longer it becomes harder to track, also because it gets what is essentially a powerful and not fully predictable delta-v.

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:Hit or Miss by sznupi · 2010-08-31 22:40 · Score: 1

Size - yeah, that's the idea. But it's mostly a size of thin sheet, not such a problem when hit. Mass - only slightly.
Drastically increasing drag-to-mass ratio.

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:Hit or Miss by sznupi · 2010-08-31 22:42 · Score: 1

You'd mostly get a cloud of ionised particles interfering with / destroying satellites. And since when America cares about affordability of silly pursuits?

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:Hit or Miss by sznupi · 2010-08-31 22:47 · Score: 1

That's what you get from reading TFA...

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:Hit or Miss by sznupi · 2010-08-31 22:53 · Score: 1

This could realistically point at a very small number of targets in a given amount of time, for quite little average effect above what the Sun can already give...

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:Hit or Miss by FinalMidnight · 2010-09-01 04:18 · Score: 1

It all depends on the size of the reflector, or better, array of reflectors.
It is probably more effective (given rotation times etc of a very large sail) to aim the array at an orbit and impart sunlight to objects as they approach in that vector. It may well be practical to rapidly turn on and off the reflectivity of the sail with shutters or LCD cells or the like, avoiding striking unintended targets.
The ability to de-orbit any satellites equipped with a solar sail alone might make this worthwhile. Also, point it at a terrestrial solar farm for double the energy production!
Outside the reams of the achievable right now, to be sure, but what are we without our dreams?

--
In the maelstrom of the chaos at the center of my mind, I taste the salt of sadness as I feel my soul unwind.
Re:Hit or Miss by sznupi · 2010-09-01 19:10 · Score: 1

Usually we do have to limit ourself when it comes to sizes / numbers though; and solutions compete with each other to the death. When times will come that we won't have to...well, that means ability to deal with debris in via more "active" measures anyway, for example.
Generally, I suspect that either a) tracking would be too slow to target appreciable number of targets, or b) (when modulating reflectivity / "wide area" focused) the effect would be miniscule compared with what the Sun already provides (especially considering L1 / geometry of such mirror)
The latter is a dealbraker here - nvm that in LEO aerodynamic drag would dominate on the sail - in MEO the Sun itself will work very well untill the satellite would be brough down to where the drag takes over. Yes, some rudimentary level of control (*) is needed to keep the sail pointed appropriately, but large mirror needs that too.
(*)spin synchronized with the orbital period would be enough; or not even synchronised, just spinning in the "good" way with a a bit "shell-like" sail, similarly to how rotating asteroids take/give away momentum via the combined effect of radiation & spin.
(building & pointing mirrors on the surface of the Earth works well, too; in fact, this is how solar powerplants using water/steam as their working agent function)
And you know, I can fly in my dreams, sometimes; but I do consider practical implications before trying it after awaking ;) (well, ok, on Titan it would be doable; but even if I could get there, cold temperatures and the air with, essentially, Zyklon B still would make me seriously consider if it's really a good idea...)

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:Hit or Miss by FinalMidnight · 2010-09-01 20:55 · Score: 1

Why would tracking be slow? Parallax being what it is? As long as the mirror is tracking targets within the same quadrant of the sky, it should be able to switch fast enough.
As for modulation, I think you are making unstated assumptions about reflectivity and switching speeds. How are you imagining the focus to be shifted and reflectivity varied? Mylar held by variable stays, held taught by photion pressure, for example? Easy, point a big dish at a little dish for a two reflector system, and your traverse speeds (governed by mass) and modulation speed (also, to some extent governed by mass, depending on the method) are dramatically reduced, as now you only must move the smaller reflector.
I know very well about solar concentration with mirrors. A reflector array in the L1 would have the potential to extend the day cycle of a solar collection site.
http://www.sbp.de/en/html/solar/dish-stirling.html

--
In the maelstrom of the chaos at the center of my mind, I taste the salt of sadness as I feel my soul unwind.
Re:Hit or Miss by sznupi · 2010-09-01 21:31 · Score: 1

Remember how extremely precise the tracking would have to be & without introducing structural instability to, preferably, very lightweight mirror - which on top of that is the biggest solar sail present, by far (so with a massive need to stationkeep / combat momentum, depending on the variant). Small dish under immense energy flux onto its fairly imperfect (remember, certainly space weathered) surface.
As for prolonging times of some solar powerplant (if there was any time left for that) - a semi-orbit around L1 would be in the general directon of the Sun anyway. Better & cheaper to add dozens of additional solar plants to the network on the ground.
We need to see problems to solve, for our dreams to come true.

--
One that hath name thou can not otter

What problem? by reverendbeer · 2010-08-31 06:38 · Score: 2, Funny

Just send up a guy with a jet pack and a baseball bat...let reentry take care of the rest.

Re:What problem? by natehoy · 2010-08-31 07:54 · Score: 1

I'm thinking create a couple of small singularities in low earth orbit and let them vacuum up the space debris. Let gravity do the work. What could possibly go wrong?

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:What problem? by instagib · 2010-08-31 08:29 · Score: 1

Excellent idea. "Black holes in orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Re:What problem? by operagost · 2010-08-31 08:54 · Score: 1

Don't forget the 'roids.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:What problem? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 11:14 · Score: 0

Soooo... the "stuff" goes into a lower orbit and burns up, and the "guy" goes into a higher orbit and away.

The perfect solution has already been worked out by TrentTheThief · 2010-08-31 06:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

This is the solution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvage_1

The Great Lower-Orbit Garbage Patch by stagg · 2010-08-31 06:42 · Score: 1, Interesting

Sounds like the same kind of problem we're wrestling with down here.

Obligatory space elevator post... by stagg · 2010-08-31 06:43 · Score: 0, Redundant

If only we could finish the space elevator, we could use it to bring the garbage back down to Earth! Or bring janitors to the stars! It's only ten years away!

Re:The perfect solution has already been worked ou by erroneus · 2010-08-31 06:50 · Score: 0

Heh. I sort of remember this show. There are no torrents for it on TPB so I wonder if there is a way I can go back and watch these again. I remember liking the show when I was a kid... I also enjoyed Space 1999. I was able to download those though.

Economic solution: by macraig · 2010-08-31 06:51 · Score: 1

Turn the ISS into a gift shop and sell all the bits of junk as souvenirs on eBay, Craigslist, and the Shopping Network. The shipping cost will be a bitch but people will buy it anyway just to be the first on their block with *that* on their mantle (or in their front yard).

Re:Economic solution: by oldmac31310 · 2010-08-31 07:42 · Score: 2, Funny

I expect the frozen bags of urine would be a top selling item. Great idea!

--
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Re:Economic solution: by natehoy · 2010-08-31 07:57 · Score: 1

Is there anything the free market can't solve?

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:Economic solution: by IrquiM · 2010-08-31 08:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

Apart from the danger of monopoly and people being left outside? Nope

--
This is blinging
Re:Economic solution: by c6gunner · 2010-08-31 09:19 · Score: 2, Funny

I'd say the shipping costs would be quite low, actually. Fast delivery times too. You could place your order, grab a baseball glove, head out to the back yard, and receive your package 5 minutes later.
Re:Economic solution: by macraig · 2010-08-31 12:08 · Score: 1

Well, sure, if you opt for the air freight shipping....
Re:Economic solution: by nanospook · 2010-08-31 14:33 · Score: 1

Nah, there would be a lot of forgeries..

--
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
Re:Economic solution: by oldmac31310 · 2010-08-31 21:50 · Score: 1

and dealers - get a load of this - pure unadulterated astronaut - cosmonaut - whatevah! All the same to me innit? Lahvly! Mmmmm. Jus 50k, wot you say, eh, rich bwoy? Keep it in the freezer? Spray it on the lawn? Baptize the little'uns? Owzabout 40k then? Wot? Do I smell or summink? Come back!!!

--
http://www.acetonestudio.com

Lasers... by Joce640k · 2010-08-31 06:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

This guy built a laser which tracks mosquitoes in a room and zaps them. Surely the technology can be adapted...

--
No sig today...

Re:Lasers... by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-08-31 07:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

You know, I always wanted to talk to that guy for the exact reason you posted. I thought it would be a great university project for some aerospace engineering students to team up with this guy and build a small satellite (~500 kg) that used some combination of high-load capacitors, trickle charge electronics, solar cells, and his laser-tracking technology to basically float around Earth for awhile in a particularly polluted altitude band and just try zapping what ~10 cm pieces of space junk they could find. It would be a great effort for the students, and would act as a wonderful proof-of-concept demonstrator to the big players in the space industry.

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Re:Lasers... by John+Hasler · 2010-08-31 07:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

> ...a wonderful proof-of-concept demonstrator...
What concept do you think it would prove? "Hitting stuff with a laser" is not very hard and has been demonstrated many times, even in space.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:Lasers... by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-08-31 08:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

Something along the lines of: "hitting stuff with a laser, in space, on a shoestring (university) budget, on a small, COTs-derived, simple vehicle."

That's a very different proof than "hitting something with a laser in space."

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Re:Lasers... by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-08-31 08:17 · Score: 3, Informative

Oh, also, most of the things we've hit with lasers in space, today, are things whose relative position, velocity, flight path, and orientation are known. Recognizing an anonymous piece of cold debris, targeting it, and maintaining laser contact on it for any decent amount of time is a significantly different problem than targeting the next satellite in a known constellation and establishing a two-way communication protocol between hardware.

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Re:Lasers... by Patch86 · 2010-08-31 09:42 · Score: 2, Informative

Not to point out the obvious, but killing flies and destroying space junk are two very different things.
The insect laser only needs to wound the insect enough that it is no longer a trouble- badly damage the wings, or cause it bodily injury. The insect then tumbles harmlessly to the ground.
The debris laser needs to do one of two things- either impart enough thermal energy to the junk so that it's trajectory is changed, causing it to de-orbit, or to disintegrate it into such tiny pieces that it no longer poses a threat upon impact. Both of which are likely to need more energy than de-winging a mosquito.
Lasers are easy- we've had them for many years. Tracking the debris is easy- we're doing it now. Having something that can point accurately at something we're tracking- that's easy enough too. Having something that can do all that with enough power to actually be useful, able to do it over and over again without running out of consumables, and do that on a sane budget-that's tricky.
Re:Lasers... by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-08-31 09:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

Having something that can do all that with enough power to actually be useful, able to do it over and over again without running out of consumables, and do that on a sane budget-that's tricky.
Agreed. This is precisely what makes it an interesting and worthwhile engineering project to work on.

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Re:Lasers... by blair1q · 2010-08-31 09:58 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually it's the same problem.
Satellite controllers use the radar-tracking derived ephemeris data from NORAD. It's a simple matter of changing a search parameter in the data request to get the debris trajectories.
Re:Lasers... by Jesus_666 · 2010-08-31 10:29 · Score: 1

Plus, if the sattelite for some reason mistakes a functioning sattelite for spae debris (for example because of a problem with the distance tracking that leaves it unable to distinguish between "small and close" and "large and far away") the results could be very expensive.

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Re:Lasers... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 10:29 · Score: 0

float around Earth for awhile in a particularly polluted altitude band and just try zapping what ~10 cm pieces of space junk they could find
I know what sound it will make: peew, peew, peew!
Re:Lasers... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 11:12 · Score: 0

Lasers are easy- we've had them for many years.
Well... in space, believe me, they're not so easy. You run pretty quickly into serious thermal issues when using powerful lasers up there (I've been working on that until last month).
Re:Lasers... by physburn · 2010-08-31 11:27 · Score: 2, Funny

Nice idea, But the sharks would suffocate in space.
Re:Lasers... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 11:46 · Score: 0

thermal energy? Am I missing something? Does warming something make it fall faster?
Re:Lasers... by IICV · 2010-08-31 15:06 · Score: 1

That idea will work perfectly as soon as you figure out how we're going to be able to hear space debris buzz.
Or did you think that guy's laser detected mosquitoes with magic?
Re:Lasers... by Pence128 · 2010-08-31 17:45 · Score: 1

Lasers large enough to zap ~10cm pieces of space junk weigh far more than 500kg.

--
404: sig not found.
Re:Lasers... by Pence128 · 2010-08-31 17:50 · Score: 1

if you heat it hot and fast enough, the explosion of vapourized material will impart kinetic energy on the object.

--
404: sig not found.
Re:Lasers... by cusco · 2010-09-01 01:30 · Score: 1

Your satellite heats up too much generating the laser pulse and it's hard to get rid of the heat. The first thing that the space shuttle does when it gets to orbit is open the bay doors, since the radiators are on the inside of the doors. If they couldn't get the doors open the spacecraft would overheat and the mission would have to be aborted.

Heat dispersal is a real big issue in space, so far radiating it away is the only solution and that's not terribly easy or efficient.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:Lasers... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-01 07:09 · Score: 0

It tracks them by the sound they make, I don't know how that can be adapted to space, unless you replace the sound detector with a camera but shape recognition is not as accurate as homing in on a specific rhythm and frequency.

Out of dimension? by gmuslera · 2010-08-31 06:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

The average junkyard in earth surface using a relatively few square meters have far more junk than that, and we are talking here of something of orders bigger than the entire earth surface, probably in an area of the size of a medium country you get one piece of more than 10 cm. The article puts it as something packed with junk. Ok, they aren't static, they orbit, and usually at big speeds (several times faster than a bullet), and is a problem with only increases with time, is not something to discard too easily, but still the warning seem a bit exaggerated.

Re:Out of dimension? by sunking2 · 2010-08-31 06:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Oh hush. I'm trying to get some grant money!
Re:Out of dimension? by djdanlib · 2010-08-31 07:50 · Score: 4, Informative

You need to get through all the orbits of uncontrolled junk, which takes a lot of calculation and you can only move so fast.
You have to be able to get out of the way of new junk that's moving so fast you can't accelerate quickly enough to wait and see if it might miss you.
Calculation of junk trajectory is only so precise, so you have to leave a 'safety buffer' of sorts.
There's more junk up there than we have cataloged. There will always be new junk, and collisions alter orbits of existing junk such that our known trajectories become inaccurate and we have to relocate and recalculate all the time.
So finding a safe zone which requires the least fuel usage to stay alive is becoming more challenging.
Tiny fragments that wouldn't harm anyone if you threw it at them are deadly, equipment-wrecking projectiles at high velocity. Think about a small piece of metal, like a penny. Not a problem if you drop it on your foot. Not going to destroy a vehicle if you drop if off a towering skyscraper, even. But, in space where there's no[t enough] atmosphere to slow it down or burn it up, it can theoretically approach any speed... and a 1,000 MPH penny is a fearsome entity to a fragile laboratory measurement device. We might not even be able to track that very accurately, but if you guess wrong... you transfer that momentum into multiple new shards of former expensive equipment!
So getting things into space is really getting more complicated and keeping things alive up there takes a lot more calculation and fuel as the probability of stray objects increases. Does that cut down on the exaggeration factor?
Re:Out of dimension? by blair1q · 2010-08-31 10:00 · Score: 1

One hit can ruin a billion-dollar project, and create a multi-billion dollar investigation and recovery effort.
The shit needs to be cleaned up.
Re:Out of dimension? by rlseaman · 2010-08-31 10:21 · Score: 4, Informative

the warning seem a bit exaggerated
Consider that each object (in low Earth orbit) is in a separate orbit. Each pair of orbits crosses twice on opposite sides of the Earth. The eccentricity of each orbit causes the object to traverse a range of altitudes, defining the subset of all the LEO objects that are possible collision risks at any given time. The risk for two particular objects colliding is low, but each object has many other opportunities as it crosses thousands of other orbital tracks each time it circles the Earth. Then integrate over all the objects. The probability is a nested summation - integrated over time.
For example, assume there are about one hundred spacecraft (active and defunct) occupying a particular semimajor axis "zone". Each satellite orbits once every 90 minutes, ie, 16 orbits/day. Each satellite crosses the orbit of another about 200 times in that 90 minutes. Usually the other spacecraft is somewhere else entirely, but there are a lot of opportunities.
Establish a "comfort radius" - say, one kilometer. If Le Petit Prince is sitting on a satellite, he will get very nervous if another spacecraft zooms through this keyhole at 10 km/s. A typical low Earth orbit is about 42,000 of these comfort units long. So the odds (ignoring altitude for the moment) of finding a spacecraft within the same part of the orbit - during each passage - is 1/42,000. Multiply by the 200 opportunities makes this 1/210 (0.5%) per orbit or about 7.5%/day/spacecraft. There are 100 spacecraft in this zone, so that amounts to about 4 close encounters per day (divide in half since it takes two to tango) in which some spacecraft passes directly above or below another by a few kilometers.
Accounting for altitude requires a bit more physics (inverse square law and all that), but basically amounts to a similar argument of dividing the altitude range traversed by each satellite into comfort zones. The odds of passing through the keyhole drop, but not dramatically - and the orbit crossings keep piling up about a hundred thousand per day per altitude range. With each close encounter, the odds of an impact are basically very simple. What is the volume of a typical spacecraft divided by the 1 km^3 volume? (The second spacecraft either will or won't be occupying the same volume at the moment of closest approach.) Satellites can be surprisingly large - Hubble is about the size of a schoolbus - but figure a Volkswagen van or at least a Beetle.
Bear in mind that this is just one particular altitude range, the same thing is happening at different altitudes. Some spacecraft are in highly elliptical orbits and cross through several such zones. In short, what seems to be a three dimensional problem is really one dimensional. After the spacecraft collision a couple of years ago some of us were scribbling on a blackboard. A physical model would be needed to get the precise answers, but a ball park figure is that we can expect the apparently astronomically rare event of two LEO spacecraft colliding to happen about once per decade (in the absence of active station keeping). Then account for all the debris, not just complete spacecraft.
Re:Out of dimension? by sznupi · 2010-08-31 22:23 · Score: 1

As of now there is a serious debate as to whether or not Kessler Syndrome threshold density has already been reached in some orbital bands. Even if there is a certain level of exaggeration, that's a very preferred side of the "error" (wouldn't be the first and only present example of actually underestimating the consequences though)

--
One that hath name thou can not otter

Re:Hmm by Sir_Lewk · 2010-08-31 06:53 · Score: 3, Informative

Why shouldn't it be hard? Large changes in velocity require large amounts of fuel. Doesn't matter if you are "speeding up" or "slowing down". That's why so many of these ideas involve working out a way for satellites to increase their drag after a time.

--
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)

The real problem... by fahrbot-bot · 2010-08-31 06:53 · Score: 4, Funny

...like lasers in space.

The main obstacles being shark deployment and survivability.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .

Re:The real problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 07:39 · Score: 0

...like lasers in space.
The main obstacles being shark deployment and survivability.
Maybe shark space suits with rocket backpacks?
Re:The real problem... by slick7 · 2010-08-31 09:10 · Score: 1

...like lasers in space.
The main obstacles being shark deployment and survivability.
Yeah, shark fin soup is mighty tasty.

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Re:The real problem... by sznupi · 2010-08-31 11:00 · Score: 1

Maybe it's not such a big problem?
Also, allow me to use this opportunity and point out how "frozen bags of astronaut urine" can bring a whole new meaning to "get pissed on"...

--
One that hath name thou can not otter

Asteroids the game has suddenly become real by __aatirs3925 · 2010-08-31 06:58 · Score: 1, Interesting

Add a few laser "command centers" around orbit and have an online vector game ready to destroy the debris. Personally I liked the previous suggestion of space baseball.

I think this applies... by badboy_tw2002 · 2010-08-31 07:03 · Score: 5, Funny

Hi there! Your post advocates a

( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting space junk. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Junkers can easily use it to create more space junk
( ) Space stations and other legitimate space uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force space dumps
( ) It will stop space junk for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of space will not put up with it
( ) NASA will not put up with it
( ) The space police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from space junkers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many space users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Space junkers don't care about other junk in their junk
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for space
( ) Launches in foreign countries
( ) Difficulty of searching for tiny junk in all of space
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing investment in space
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all space junk collection policies
( ) Extreme profitability of space junk
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with space junkers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of space junkers themselves
( ) Fuel costs that are unaffected by space junk
( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) We should be able to talk about space Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve missles
( ) Countermeasures should not involve more junk
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending things to space should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your space garbage company?
( ) Incompatiblity with space licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) I don't want the government cleaning up space
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!

Re:I think this applies... by IICV · 2010-08-31 15:21 · Score: 2, Funny

...
( ) Dishonesty on the part of space junkers themselves
( ) Fuel costs that are unaffected by space junk
( ) Powerpoint ...
There, fixed that for you. I'm certain that bad Powerpoint presentations will still be creating tons of space debris after we're all dead.

Tethers and such are not a way to clean up. by John+Hasler · 2010-08-31 07:03 · Score: 1

They are just ways to keep the mess from getting worse very fast. They do nothing about the existing junk or the results of many probable accidents.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.

Re:Tethers and such are not a way to clean up. by dintech · 2010-09-01 01:01 · Score: 1

The rate of orbital decay should eventually (years, decades, centuries) take care of everything in low earth orbit. So if we can stop putting stuff up there which doesn't decay well, eventually we should have less stuff overall. Maybe.
The various space junk are like people and teeth. If you ignore them for long enough, they'll eventually go away.

Orbital Junk by UninformedCoward · 2010-08-31 07:06 · Score: 2, Funny

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

wait...

Re:Orbital Junk by Yvan256 · 2010-08-31 07:48 · Score: 2, Informative

I guess that would be "just detonate the nukes already in orbit" in that particular case.
Re:Orbital Junk by Convector · 2010-08-31 15:13 · Score: 1

Ohsure. Turn our space junk into radioactive space junk. Just 'cause you blow it up doesn't make it vanish. It's still up there waiting for its chance to strike. And now there are even more pieces to worry about. In fact, I think much of the debris up there is from China, Russia, or the US blowing stuff up in anti-missile tests.

Max Headroom has the solution by acroyear · 2010-08-31 07:07 · Score: 1

20 minutes into the future, Mardi Gras will be replaced by "Sky Fall", a week-long festival where this year's space junk is intentionally grounded by remote control to crash into the sea or burn up in the atmosphere.

--
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe

Re:Max Headroom has the solution by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 07:22 · Score: 0

That would be awesome for a few years all until the inevitable douchebaggery starts from usual places (Hollywood types, fratboys, etc.)

"Toy Box" by Computer_kid · 2010-08-31 07:09 · Score: 1

Get the crew from debris section!

Re:"Toy Box" by dadelbunts · 2010-08-31 08:49 · Score: 1

The best guy they had is on the Von Braun

Re:The perfect solution has already been worked ou by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 07:10 · Score: 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes

You don't need virtual girlfriends by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 07:11 · Score: 0

Google pick up artist its something you can learn to do.

Why do anything about it? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 07:11 · Score: 0

I like a little space junk in the trunk.

Re:Hmm by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-08-31 07:11 · Score: 1

It's not terribly hard, but it is expensive. Depending on what kind of deorbit profile you develop, you either have to carry extra fuel for the entire mission (accounting for things like boil-off and ablation) to burn your way back to a properly low orbit, or you carry a whole new deployment mechanism to drag you back down (solar sail, kite, whatever), which adds an entire subsystem that you have to track, design, and engineer throughout the development process (mind you, no current launch vehicles have this capability, so they have to rely on unspent fuel), or you use some exotic means of deorbit like the Earth's magnetic field to pull you back down into the atmosphere. Of course, that last one also requires an entire subsystem development team as well. So in the end, deorbiting becomes a very expensive effort that requires engineers and technology to achieve. Is it impossible? Nah. Is it cheap? Nah. Most companies/countries/entities won't bother about deorbiting because they are less concerned about the environment and more concerned about how modern their space program looks. Thus, they don't bother with deorbiting their spacecraft because they would rather spend their engineers and money doing impressive things like landing on asteroids, or blowing up other satellites in orbit.... (yes, I'm looking at you China, you short-sighted wankers).

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!

Incinerator by DrugCheese · 2010-08-31 07:16 · Score: 0

Why don't we toss junk into the sun?

--
*DrugCheese rants*

Re:Incinerator by GodfatherofSoul · 2010-08-31 07:22 · Score: 4, Funny

The same reason you don't carry your car to work to save gas money.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Re:Incinerator by John+Hasler · 2010-08-31 07:35 · Score: 1

Sure. You do the tossing.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:Incinerator by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 08:15 · Score: 0

Why don't we toss junk into the sun?
Because the deltaV required to get junk into the sun is more than three times that required to get the junk into orbit around the Earth in the first place.
In other words, in order to insert a defunct satellite into an orbit that'll drop it into the Sun, a two ton satellite would require about 1500 tons of fuel....
Note that it would be easier to dump a defunct satellite into Alpha Centauri (it would take longer, but the deltaV requirement is much less) than into our Sun.

Better solution by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 07:16 · Score: 0

Just send up all the special interest fatten politicians. They should be put to work for a change.

Re:Hmm by grub · 2010-08-31 07:18 · Score: 2, Funny

They should just move the Earth from the encircling space junk.

--
Trolling is a art,

Lasers are quite feasible for this... by John+Hasler · 2010-08-31 07:19 · Score: 1

...though not "in space". See laser broom .

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.

Giant foam ball by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 07:23 · Score: 0

What about a space craft specifically designed to deal with the debris? I'm picturing something towing a giant foam ball that will absorb/slow down most of what contacts it. The space craft is pilot-able and comes back to earth, with the absorber attached.

Re:Giant foam ball by cmiller173 · 2010-08-31 07:38 · Score: 1

Like near the end of this: http://www.theclassictoons.com/11/hasty-hare/
Re:Giant foam ball by sznupi · 2010-08-31 22:10 · Score: 1

...or produce more of the debris. An why even a mention of "pilot-able", what for?

--
One that hath name thou can not otter

Magnets by pspahn · 2010-08-31 07:27 · Score: 1

There must be some kind of application for magnetics out there.

--
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.

Re:Magnets by dadelbunts · 2010-08-31 08:54 · Score: 1

how do they work?

Put ointment on it by Ranger · 2010-08-31 07:30 · Score: 1

Sounds painful.

--
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"

Statistics... by Sir_Lewk · 2010-08-31 07:36 · Score: 3, Informative

...that is not how they work.

There are no 669,725 people that are in any more danger than anyone else. There isn't a 1/10,000 chance that it will hit each person, there is a 1/10,000 chance that it will hit any person. In other words, for every ten-thousand pieces of space junk that fall, you might get a single casualty.

If you think these are particularly bad odds, then I have some bad news about your car...

--
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)

Re:Statistics... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 08:34 · Score: 1, Funny

Aw, I wanted to see the paint chip which could kill "669 725 earthlings" (roughly the population of San Francisco) in one go.
(Hint to all: GP was probably joking)

Simple is Better by YetAnotherBob · 2010-08-31 07:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

A simple solution might be to send up a sounding rocket to the altitude where a typical debris cloud is and just release a cloud of nitrogen gas. the cloud will fall soon into the atmosphere, the sounding rocket will too. the debris field will have a short time in a very low density gas cloud, and drop in it's orbit. Normal decay will then reduce the overall problem.

Presumably, the AF knows where the debris is. Look for any clusters. Publish where and when it is going to be taken out. Unless someone objects, with a why, then do it. Probably find out who owns a lot of the back satellites that way.

Begin to get rid of the litter. We won't finish until after we start. Right now, there is no cleanup.

Maybe a first test run, then, when we can predict the outcome, a regular program of removal.

--
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.

Re:Simple is Better by John+Hasler · 2010-08-31 08:26 · Score: 1

> ...typical debris cloud...
There are no debris clouds. Each individual bit of scrap is in its own orbit.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:Simple is Better by slick7 · 2010-08-31 09:22 · Score: 1

Presumably, the AF knows where the debris is.
Yeah they do.
Look at all the dots

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.

Obligatory Star Wars Quote by CohibaVancouver · 2010-08-31 07:42 · Score: 1

Switch all power to *front* deflector screens.

Switch all power to *front* deflector screens.

Re:Obligatory Star Wars Quote by slick7 · 2010-08-31 09:23 · Score: 1

Switch all power to *front* deflector screens. Switch all power to *front* deflector screens.
Are sure you don't mean "forward"?

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Re:Obligatory Star Wars Quote by CohibaVancouver · 2010-08-31 09:56 · Score: 1

Looks like we both got it wrong...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v5VahaEL7s#t=1m18s

"We're passing through their magnetic field."
"Hold tight."
"Switch your deflectors on double-front."
Re:Obligatory Star Wars Quote by Garth+Vader · 2010-08-31 10:56 · Score: 1

When the first 3 y-wings go into the trench you get the *front* deflector screens line.
Re:Obligatory Star Wars Quote by slick7 · 2010-09-01 09:06 · Score: 1

Remember, it's more important to go forward than to go straight.

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.

Simpler solutions by SnarfQuest · 2010-08-31 07:52 · Score: 1

Blowing the debris up, in various ways, just makes the problem worse by making more pieces instead of fewer.

Dropping them to the Earth means a chance of dropping them on someone/thing. They should design in a safe burn-up plan instead of letting it fall wherever.

The best solution is to not generate debris in the first place. Too much of this crap is just some country sending up a "look at me" advertisement, like China's blowing up satellites.

--
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.

Re:Simpler solutions by John+Hasler · 2010-08-31 08:31 · Score: 1

Blowing the debris up, in various ways, just makes the problem worse by making more pieces instead of fewer.
Depends. Blowing up large objects that are in low orbit breaks them into many tiny pieces that re-enter quickly instead of remaining in orbit for decades.

Dropping them to the Earth means a chance of dropping them on someone/thing. They should design in a safe burn-up plan instead of letting it fall wherever.
Most of the stuff is already such that it would not survive re-entry.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.

The answer is simple: Funding. by Remus+Shepherd · 2010-08-31 07:53 · Score: 2, Informative

We don't need new strategies for getting objects down from space. We know how to get them down. When a satellite has outlived its usefulness, you reserve enough fuel so that it can deorbit itself.

The problem is that satellites are expensive and rare still, so we don't want to give them up. So we keep the missions up there for years past their expected lifetime, with the result that they don't have deorbiting fuel left over when they finally break down enough that they're no good to us anymore.

An example: I work with Landsat 5. It was launched in 1982 with a 5 year mission plan. It's still up there, 28 years later, and still a vital piece of the US remote sensing strategy. The next similar satellite won't be launched until 2012. Although it had a deorbiting plan that would have sunk it into the atmosphere a few years after it was decommissioned, that plan was waived. The current plan is to put it into an orbit that will leave it as space debris for 1000 years before it gets low enough to burn in.

If we had funded the satellite program enough, there would have been several follow-on missions and L5 would not still be essential. We would have been able to deorbit it without complaint if there were others that could have taken its role.

Fund space and you won't have space problems. Don't fund it and it'll become a graveyard. Simple as that.

--
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.

Make a Ring by komby · 2010-08-31 07:56 · Score: 1

Seriously, Those astronauts aren't really doing anything up there anymore. Let them go up and start arranging the junk in the shape of a ring

Why all this talk about shooting it down? by IrquiM · 2010-08-31 08:16 · Score: 1

We've already spent billions getting it up there, why not recycle it? Create a recycling station in orbit. There's probably enough material to create something nice that would benefit the entire world. If this is organised by UN or something similar, give the governments with secret stuff up there 5 years to get rid of it, and if they do, whatever can be captured, belongs to the recycle station. Let's call it IRS - International Recycling Station!

--
This is blinging

Re:Why all this talk about shooting it down? by John+Hasler · 2010-08-31 08:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

We've already spent billions getting it up there, why not recycle it? Create a recycling station in orbit.
Every bit of trash is in a different orbit. It takes expensive fuel to change orbits. Collecting it all in one place would cost more than simply launching the same amount of stuff from the surface.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:Why all this talk about shooting it down? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 08:36 · Score: 0

Because recycling things gets a bit harder when those things have enough energy to pierce a hole through your recycler.
Re:Why all this talk about shooting it down? by slick7 · 2010-08-31 09:30 · Score: 1

We've already spent billions getting it up there, why not recycle it? Create a recycling station in orbit.

Sorry, my prior designs originate in the late 70's. Therefore I hold a prior copyright on intellectual property.

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Re:Why all this talk about shooting it down? by lennier · 2010-08-31 14:10 · Score: 1

Well sir, there's nothing on earth
Like a genuine,
Bona fide,
Electrified
Space-age
Elevator!
Ned Flanders: Elevator!
Lyle Lanley: What's it called?
Patty+Selma: Elevator!
Lyle Lanley: That's right! Elevator!
[crowd chants `Elevator' softly and rhythmically]

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC

Did they ever... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 08:24 · Score: 0

...hear about VACUUM cleaners?

More information there: http://www.google.com/search?q=VACUUM

Excellent idea by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 08:30 · Score: 0

Well-tested throughout the 80's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrosmash

Get a big gun by slapout · 2010-08-31 08:31 · Score: 1

Target Practice?

--
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad

DUH USE THE STAR WARS SATELLITE by hashish16 · 2010-08-31 08:34 · Score: 1

We all know its up there, just secretly "DELETE" space debris.

The most obvious solution... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 08:43 · Score: 0

Just use a vacuum cleaner...

Life imitates Art by MichaelJ · 2010-08-31 08:43 · Score: 1

Just send up Salvage 1. Or maybe Quark.

--

Michael J.
Root, God, what is difference?

A gravity laser is what we need. by kawabago · 2010-08-31 08:49 · Score: 1

We'll probably have one shortly after we figure out what gravity actually is.

Re:Hmm by slick7 · 2010-08-31 09:06 · Score: 1

Depending on what kind of deorbit profile you develop, ....

Always with the de-orbit. Reduce, reuse, recycle, oh, and recover. All satellites are insured with really big recovery fees.

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.

Re:The perfect solution has already been worked ou by slick7 · 2010-08-31 09:07 · Score: 2, Funny

This is the solution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvage_1

Two words...Fly paper.

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.

Re:Make a Ring by slick7 · 2010-08-31 09:26 · Score: 1

Seriously, Those astronauts aren't really doing anything up there anymore. Let them go up and start arranging the junk in the shape of a ring

Seriously, PHD garbage men.
How do gat a PHD off your porch?

Pay for the pizza they deliver.

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.

recycle recycle recycle... by sgt+scrub · 2010-08-31 09:33 · Score: 1

well, ok. some of it http://idle.slashdot.org/story/10/08/31/1713210/Whisky-Made-From-Diabetics-Urine isn't completely recyclable but...

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.

Also worth watching by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 09:40 · Score: 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes

Anime, but it's "hard" sci-fi. Set in 2075, the main band of characters deal with large-order space-junk. It mixes in some topics in geopolitics and missions to the outer planets too.

Re:Also worth watching by davolfman · 2010-08-31 13:35 · Score: 1

Don't forget "A woman saving human spaceflight and thereby current human civilization so she can finally get a smoke break."

Impactor Ballistic Missle? by lurking_giant · 2010-08-31 09:45 · Score: 1

Launch a simple rocket on a ballistic trajectory that impacts the item you want to de-orbit. Only aim it to hit the target on the way back down so that the added momentum pushes them into a lower orbit... Another thought would be to use a gravity tractor concept like the one being proposed for moving asteroids. In this instance the goal would be to send a simple thruster device on a path to "not impact" the object you want to move... only use it as a gravity sling which alters the path of both objects in proportion to their mass. If you choose the path correctly, the target heads into the atmosphere and you have the thruster heading for another target. Work it out to do a grand tour style path so you get the most bang for your thruster fuel buck.

Gentlemen, Gentlemen. by blair1q · 2010-08-31 10:05 · Score: 1

We've been over this many times before, and we already know what the solution will be, when we are ready to commit to it.

As avove as below by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 11:42 · Score: 0

Nothing new, we trash the land then the sea then the air and now the surrounding orbits

Life as usual, of course more affluent orbits will look tidy (for a while) as expense of the rest.

Principal Skinner... by mutube · 2010-08-31 13:00 · Score: 1

...is that you?!

--
Python coder | PyQt Applications | Writer

Re:The perfect solution has already been worked ou by davolfman · 2010-08-31 13:33 · Score: 1

Planetes: Never has the orbital equivalent of litter picking been portrayed as more of an epic job.

Imagine. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 15:31 · Score: 0

A nation like North Corea being attacked and sending some "space grenades" filling the space around earth with a lot of space junk. Let`s the military begin to use the space and we will go to a hell in a short time.

space sharks by mariospants · 2010-08-31 15:42 · Score: 2, Funny

Cybernetic space sharks would easily take care of the problem of keeping the burgeoning space whale population under control. As we all know, the space whales keep orbital junk under control... wait, I think I'm getting ahead of myself here...

Re:The answer is simple: Funding. by sznupi · 2010-08-31 21:12 · Score: 1

At least non-fuel-dependant methods wouldn't be abused so much in current climate... and overall might be cheaper when it comes to launch mass (assuming the same mission duration and fairly certain , fairly quick deorbiting, even if it wouldn't be precise at all with, say, a drag sail)

--
One that hath name thou can not otter

Totally Lunatic Idea by jman.org · 2010-08-31 23:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

I hear folks on the moon are looking for raw materials. Why not just build a recycling center there? We've already expended energy getting all that stuff out of the gravity well, would make sense to help build up our Lunar presence with no-longer-needed materials hanging around in orbit.

Re:The answer is simple: Funding. by Drakkenmensch · 2010-09-01 01:35 · Score: 1

Better still - keep the deorbiting fuel reserve separate from the normal operations fuel reserve, so that even if you use the satellite until it's depleted and useless, it will still have the untouched recall option fuel ready to use. This would prevent the administrators higher up from being tempted to use the deorbit fuel to squeeze another decade of use instead of doing the right thing.

Re:The perfect solution has already been worked ou by slick7 · 2010-09-01 09:24 · Score: 1

A kevlar blanket, 3/4" - 1" thick, approximately 500 square feet in size bonded to a flexible chobam matrix mixed with a thick viscous gel.
This "fly paper" is then mounted on a cermet frame that has bolting lugs to attach other frames to increase the square foot area.
All on a sesame seed bun.
Any further discussion, Show Me The Money!

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.

, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-02 11:58 · Score: 0

Planetes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes) is a great hard scifi series which deals with _exactly_ this issue. It's set 65 years in the future and they have a team of space garbage collectors who do EVAs to pick up trash. It's an interesting series, not just because of the solidity of science, but also for exploring various issues related to space debris, including Kessler's scenario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_Syndrome, also mentioned in the article).

Slashdot Mirror

9 Ideas For Coping With Space Junk

149 comments