Slashdot Mirror


EPFL's CleanSpace One Satellite Will "Eat" Space Junk

Zothecula writes: Working with Geneva's University of Applied Science and Signal Processing 5 Laboratory, Swiss research institute EPFL has announced details of a plan to capture its tiny SwissCube satellites by using a new spacecraft outfitted with a conical net. Called "CleanSpace One" the team hopes that their "Pac-Man" solution will capture the old satellite. Gizmag reports: "...SwissCube's spinning action will make it more difficult to image, as its surfaces will alternately be brilliantly sunlit or hidden in shadow. That's why CleanSpace One's computer vision system will be running algorithms that account for variables such as the angle of the sun, the dimensions of the target, the speed at which that target is moving, and the rate at which CleanSpace One itself is spinning. High dynamic range cameras will also allow it to simultaneously expose for both bright and dark surfaces."

53 comments

  1. Net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope the net is a little tighter than the graphics, unless it's a very, very slow capture. Notes the 700 kph delta-v between the Cessna and F-16 in the states lead to a large number of pieces spread around, and that's not a large fraction of orbital velocities.

  2. Very needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has been a growing problem that no one has made a realistic attempt to solve. Glad someone has finally started working on it.

    1. Re:Very needed by bobbied · · Score: 2

      This has been a growing problem that no one has made a realistic attempt to solve. Glad someone has finally started working on it.

      This isn't a realistic solution... About all we can conceivably do right now is go snatch larger hardware assemblies and either bring them down or put them into parking orbits out of the way. Getting the real dangerous stuff, moving at huge relative velocities is like trying to catch bullets using your fingers. All you will do is put a whole though your fingers and likely just create more junk in the process.

      We would have better luck if we would vaporize this stuff from the ground or push it into decaying orbits using lasers or something. Trying to go up and catch it using a net is not going to work unless you can get the relative velocities nearly identical and who has the time and energy for that?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Very needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In space, if you have enough time and energy, you can speed up and be travelling at the same speed as the bullet. A bullet that is floating along in space at the same speed and direction as you can easily be caught with your fingers.

      An automated satellite that accelerates to match the orbit of debris, captures it in a cone shaped net, and then gradually de-accelerates would be able to clear that junk item by moving it to a lower non-stable orbit. It is not a fool-proof solution, but if it works often enough, it provides a reasonable mechanism for cleaning up items. In addition, it could be used on the more problematic items first (or those with the highest value to clear).

    3. Re:Very needed by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      It's also a solution that requires a lot of fuel

    4. Re:Very needed by lazy+genes · · Score: 1

      If they could find a way to catch and crunch up the debris. They could eventually make a large light show by sending the debris into reentry over a populated city. Auction the light shows off....

    5. Re:Very needed by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      We need to start by grabbing and deorbiting the largest debris pieces, before they spall off smaller pieces. Space junk gets harder to economically intercept with decreasing size, but solar pressure will eventually sweep out the smallest stuff.

    6. Re:Very needed by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Only if you move around a lot. Getting junk in very similar orbits still have value, and there is a lot of that due to some items ending up in many pieces. Trying to get it all is just a paper exercise in demonstrating to people how much deltaV is needed to treat a spacecraft like an aircraft.

    7. Re:Very needed by AikonMGB · · Score: 1

      "Vaporizing" satellites doesn't really help you. All you've done is split one big satellite into a whole bunch of tiny satellites, each of which is still moving at orbital velocity (thanks, conservation of momentum..). Except now you have a dispersed debris field moving at orbital velocity instead of a single satellite.

  3. Who has the high score? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't there a movie where a video game was the secret qualification test for a position as a space fighter pilot? Maybe Pac-Man was the test for this.

    Who has the high score? I know it wasn't me. I mostly sucked at video games.

    1. Re: Who has the high score? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Last Starfighter

  4. Research institute? Come on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EPFL stands for Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (Lausanne Federal Polytechnic School). It is not a "research institute" but one of the two (with ETH Zürich) swiss federal engineering schools, and very renowned at that. Lots of good research labs there, too, just like at MIT or Caltech, but that doesn't make them "research institutes" neither.

    Sorry but I get a bit pissed when (educated) americans don't bother knowing a bit what's outside their borders.

    1. Re:Research institute? Come on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't know what "EPFL" stands for in French because we don't fucking care...

    2. Re:Research institute? Come on... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      EPFL stands for Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (Lausanne Federal Polytechnic School). It is not a "research institute" but one of the two (with ETH Zürich) swiss federal engineering schools, and very renowned at that. Lots of good research labs there, too, just like at MIT or Caltech, but that doesn't make them "research institutes" neither.

      Its mission may not be pure research, but it implicitly self-identifies as a research institute (among other things) on its website:

      With more than 300 laboratories and research groups on campus, EPFL is one of the Europe's most innovative and productive technology institutes. At EPFL the emphasis is on both theoretical and applied research.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    3. Re:Research institute? Come on... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      The world is a big place. Hard to know everything. America is a big country, hard enough to know everything that goes on here. The population of the entire country of Switzerland is 1/3rd of Southern California and only 1/4 the size.
      Southern CA is 1/3 of California and doesn't include Stanford, Silicon Valley and all of the high tech research facilities there. And not all the research facilities in the US are in California Most states have high tech hubs.
      http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...
      http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...

    4. Re:Research institute? Come on... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      And here are their research centers which are analogous to institutes.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    5. Re: Research institute? Come on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yes, quality vs quantity. :)

  5. $commentSubject by Falos · · Score: 2

    I always figured the hard part was detecting/locating debris, more than bumping it towards reentry or escape velocity.

    I also always figured Planetes was going to be unmanned machines in practice.

  6. Red Dwarf Lives!!!! by gazelam · · Score: 2

    /obligatory

  7. I have some doubt about this by Eloking · · Score: 2

    Basically, this satellite need to joint the orbit and velocity of it's target. It seem a lot of energy to remove "one" debris. If something need to be done, wouldn't a freaking big net or something be better?

    --
    Elok
    1. Re:I have some doubt about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with not matching the orbit and velocity is that much of this junk is travelling so fast that it would puncture a really big net. If one could construct a puncture-proof net, then the problem becomes the debris hitting the net and ricocheting off (probably fractured into more pieces).

    2. Re:I have some doubt about this by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      Those pieces will have less energy though, due to some of it being absorbed in the impact.
      Less energy means lower orbit, which if they're already in LEO as most of these cubesats are, a quicker decent time until they burn up in the atmosphere.

    3. Re:I have some doubt about this by dbIII · · Score: 1

      A net is not going to be able to handle something hitting it at a few kilometres per second.
      Also a lot of junk is small stuff in similar orbits, for instance lots of lumps of sodium that used to be coolant for a reactor but are now floating side by side like very large shotgun pellets.

    4. Re:I have some doubt about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you know your target you can approach it at a bare few m/s, closing the range by a few meters per orbit, resulting in a very 'soft' contact. the biggest deal will be things in differently-inclined orbits because inclination changes are the costliest maneuvers. it takes exactly twice your orbital velocity in dV to make a 90 degree plane change. you can launch to a minimum inclination of your launch site's latitude, which is why the US launches from Canaveral. the only hard-to-grab debris will be things in lower-inclination orbits than Canaveral, closer to equatorial. Trust me, I play KSP ;)

      if you design your Catch net sats to be cheap and expendable, and easy to deorbit, you can have a very short turnaround time, lift multiple CatchSats per launch, and if your target is small enough in a low orbit, you only need a few dV to put it on a reentry course and pull away to take a new target

    5. Re:I have some doubt about this by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes but the above poster was going on about a big strong net without matched speed INSTEAD of the net system described in the linked article which is similar to your suggestion.

    6. Re:I have some doubt about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You idea has merit but not quite the way you see it. If one was to have big flat plate and align it so that space debris hit it and slowed down. This could be done at periapsis of your target debris orbit. The collision would then have great effect at the apoapsis which should help with reenter. The problems are one getting enough precision for the collision to take place. Controlling the collision so as to not cause an undesirable orbit of the debris or the deorbiter.

    7. Re:I have some doubt about this by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Lasers. You have infinite solar power available. Big battery, big laser, push the target towards the earth to de-orbit it. You would have to figure out a combination of power output, focus and duration to ensure that there is no danger to the earth, or maybe just angle it such that it is pointed over the horizon and you are just decelerating junk enough to de-orbit.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  8. I've seen this episode before by thrig · · Score: 1

    Let me guess, it tries to eat the USS Constellation?

    1. Re:I've seen this episode before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No - it is Quark :)

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_%28TV_series%29

    2. Re:I've seen this episode before by magusxxx · · Score: 1

      No - it is Salvage One :D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  9. Is RADAR to difficult? by kuhnto · · Score: 1

    I would think that metallic satellites would be good targets for RADAR VS. optical tracking.

    --
    "A 'person' is smart. 'People' are dumb, panicky animals and you know that."
    1. Re:Is RADAR to difficult? by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      I would think that metallic satellites would be good targets for RADAR VS. optical tracking.

      Not sure. Cubes are not the best for radar tracking : convex shape, flat surfaces, sharp angles. These are actually the basis for stealth design.

  10. What a waste of time... by bobbied · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm no rocket scientist but this is nuts. We are going to launch some satellite, have it capture another one, then deorbit both of them? What a waste! A waste of energy and technology to launch such hardware just to throw it away. Not to mention that orbiting broken satellites might have some useful components we might consider trying to recycle. A big dish antenna is heavy, but could conceivably be reused and save launch weight on the next satellite.

    These larger pieces of space junk are easy to track, few in number, and thus are not that dangerous. What we really need is a solution that allows us to start clearing out the smaller pieces of junk. Maybe by just nudging them around until they are in decaying orbits, or vaporizing them using lasers. If we are going to talk pie in the sky, let's do something more useful...(and perhaps more likely to be successful.)

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:What a waste of time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      These are easy to track, but their number isn't few.

      The cost is high, but less than the cost of losing new satellites. In addition, the more junk we have, the more collisions resulting in more fragments.

      Oddly enough, your suggestion of "just nudging them around until they are in decaying orbits is exactly what this mission is all about. It's the prototype for attempting to nudge a particular object into a decaying orbit. If it works, we can refine and improve upon the technique, until we perhaps nudge twenty or thirty items out per each launch.

    2. Re:What a waste of time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not a junk cleaner, it's a weapon, just like the original space exploration program was a cover for ICBM research. the 2007 chinese method of a suicidal drone makes junk that is still up there. this one is a bit more eco-friendly.

    3. Re:What a waste of time... by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Let me get this straight.

      You're proposing we send up assembly robots to dock on to old satellites and recover parts to attach to new satellites, just to save the weight of the salvaged part?

      You then need to add a bunch of fuel to get your satellite in the correct orbit to get to the old satellite
      More fuel to ship up the weight of this robot.
      More fuel to get your satellite back in the orbit it needs to be.
      More fuel to account for the extra fuel.

      Just so potentially damaged and obsolete parts can be recycled?

    4. Re:What a waste of time... by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      These larger pieces of space junk are easy to track, few in number, and thus are not that dangerous.

      While they may be easy to avoid by themselves, if, for some reason, they collide with other space junk, they may break up into a large number of smaller pieces, possibly triggering a chain reaction. Bigger debris also typically experience less drag and stay in orbit for longer.

    5. Re:What a waste of time... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      No, I said we should be thinking about such stuff because there might be value there... Which is totally different than making the claim it's a good idea. I haven't a clue if it's viable or not... I'm not a rocket scientist and all...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:What a waste of time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't we just send up a flight of unicorns then, while we're on the subject of daydreaming.

    7. Re:What a waste of time... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I'd like to point out that this idea wasn't original to me.. It was a DARPA idea I think....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:What a waste of time... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      One more thing... This idea of recycling was not original to me.. It came from DARPA I think..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    9. Re:What a waste of time... by pahles · · Score: 1

      And what are you going to do with all those salvaged parts? It's not like it's easy to get them back to earth...

      --
      Sig?
    10. Re:What a waste of time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The boosters for space exploration were not designed for ICBMs... They were slow in acceleration to protect the contents. ICBMs work best with high acceleration to reduce the targeting time for ABMs.

    11. Re: What a waste of time... by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      You actually brought up something interesting, maybe without even realizing it. This seems like a vector for asymmetrical warfare if a rogue nation could send up a single launch into LEO and have it spew millions of pieces in a direction most satellites aren't travelling but also in their orbits...

      The economic cost to clean the space or to risk the area-denial for any space launch passing through the weaponized junk would be tremendous.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    12. Re:What a waste of time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, more like DUPA, as in pulled it out of your butt, which you're now trying to cover.

  11. Profit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not having any clue about the volume of junk up there. But one would think that this little venture could turn something of a profit. Most everything up there uses some very rare earth metals and lots of gold in their construction. Could this possibly be used to fund the development of orbital smelting facilities in the precursor to near earth asteroid mining?

  12. they need to be careful no these adventures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there can be dangers in space.
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077066/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_30

  13. Gelatinous cubes by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Figure out a cheap way to make a low-density material aerogel in space. Make a large quantity of it as a single mass (doesn't have to be a cube - could be a sphere) and put it into an eccentric orbit which intersects some of the orbits with the most junk. The stuff is good at catching small high-velocity particles without fragmenting. The high surface area to mass ratio means its orbit will decay a lot quicker than regular junk. So put it into a (relatively) high orbit where it'll collect junk for a few years, before aerodynamic drag degrades its orbit and it (and the junk it's caught) burns up on re-entry.

    1. Re:Gelatinous cubes by Richard+Kirk · · Score: 2

      Mod +1 for D&D reference.

      Not too happy about the rest of this., though. I have worked with aerogel. It is weird stuff. It may be able to stop tiny particles but it tears easily. Most of the experiments that used aerogel to capture small particles from comets and suchlike kept the aerogel in a tin. So, for every bit it captures because some paint chip digs straight into it, it may lose a chunk from the surface when another paint chip hits it a glancing blow. And if you are up there long enough, and space is big so you will have a long wait until your cosmic flypaper is full, so there is a fair chance something the size of a dustbin will make a real mess of it.

      I may well be wrong on this. Aerogel is pretty tough for something that is almost not there at all, and maybe a big enough bit will be stable. But I imagine trying to stop rifle bullets in space with a large roll of bubble wrap...

  14. hopefully just a proof of concept by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

    Hopefully this thing is just a proof of concept, any such system should be able to capture multiple pieces of debris whereas this this thing seems physically limited to capturing a single piece of debris and deorbiting. That simply is impractical with over 19k pieces of debris over 3.9 inches in size to launch a satellite for each and every one. Even if each satellite had the fuel and storage to capture 100 pieces of debris that would be around 190 satellites. A better concept might be to have a couple dozen LARGE satellites (Delta IV or Falcon Heavy) in different orbits each with a dozen or so retrieval craft that go out and collect a few pieces of debris and then return to the mother satellite and drop off their debris and refuel for another trip. After the mother satellite is either out of fuel or full of debris it deorbits itself along with its retrieval craft.

    1. Re: hopefully just a proof of concept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's your PhD in astrophysics, shit genius? Are you an aerospace engineer? No? Then shut up and let competent adults speak. Go back to your room and play with lego.

    2. Re:hopefully just a proof of concept by Richard+Kirk · · Score: 1

      Proof of concept seems right. The cubesat will probably drop out of orbit anyway, but it is a handy target. If you can pick up one piece of uncooperative garbage then you can probably pick up all the others in your orbit without using a lot of fuel. That would be particularly handy for cleaning up the geostationary orbit by lumping all the unused satellites together. It would then be nice to deorbit the lot. That would take a lot of fuel, but it might be possible over a long time with a solar sail, or an ion drive. But, first we have to practice at catching the things at a low orbit so we don't add junk rather than take it out if things go wrong.

      That doesn't tell us how to clean up things like the Iridium satellites, which are heavy and each on their own inclined orbit. Perhaps you could use the satellites as reaction mass in an ion drive. But, first catch your cubesat...

  15. It's all dangerous stuff by dbIII · · Score: 1

    It's all dangerous stuff and there is value in cleaning up the easy to get to stuff.
    With all the deltaV needed to get around there is no way to get all of it with one device anyway, so getting everything was never the plan.
    One thing I was reading about this morning was all the solidified large drops of liquid sodium coolant from decomissioned satellite reactors - not so hard to get to and clean up but dangerous if you get in their way going at a very different velocity. A lot of those are gathered relatively close to each other, so you could get a bunch of junk without having to move around much.