Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Japan Sends Its New Space Junk-Fighting Technology To The ISS (phys.org)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the orbiting-butterfly-net dept.

What floats 249 miles in the sky, stretches 2,300 feet, and took over 10 years to develop? An anonymous reader quotes Phys.org: Japan launched a cargo ship Friday bound for the International Space Station, carrying a "space junk" collector that was made with the help of a fishnet company... Researchers are using a so-called electrodynamic tether made from thin wires of stainless steel and aluminum... The electricity generated by the tether as it swings through the Earth's magnetic field is expected to have a slowing effect on the space junk, which should, scientists say, pull it into a lower and lower orbit. Eventually the detritus will enter the Earth's atmosphere, burning up harmlessly long before it has a chance to crash to the planet's surface.
Bloomberg has some interesting background: The experiment is part of an international cleanup effort planning to safeguard astronauts and about $900 billion worth of space stations, satellites and other infrastructure... Satellite collisions and testing of anti-satellite weapons have added thousands of debris fragments in the atmosphere since 2007, according to NASA... With debris traveling at up to 17,500 miles an hour, the impact of even a marble-size projectile can cause catastrophic damage.

64 comments

  1. How fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    17,500mph relative to what? The ground, or the other orbital objects?

    1. Re:How fast by amiga3D · · Score: 3

      Relative to the earth. I imagine that if you're going the opposite direction it could be pretty cosmic. I saw a picture of a space shuttle windshield that had been hit by a paint chip. It didn't quite break through. A frigging paint chip.

    2. Re:How fast by BoogieChile · · Score: 3, Informative

      Relative to the centre of the Earth, which can be considered stationary for this frame of reference.

      A spot at sea level on the equator is moving about 1000 miles an hour in the same frame of reference.

      17,500 mph is the same speed as the ISS. At the distance of 22,236 miles, where the telecommunications satellites are, that drops to 6876 mph.

    3. Re: How fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My point is that if we're worried about collisions in orbit, the only speed which matters is the relative speed between the objects.

    4. Re: How fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which ranges from 0 to 2 times this

  2. about time by Oogon · · Score: 1

    finally, someone is testing solutions for this problem.

    1. Re:about time by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      If you are imparting kinetic energy on space junk, then it is imparting kinetic energy on the station. I expect keeping the station in position just got more expensive.

    2. Re:about time by rickyslashdot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Get a grip and RTFA and links - - - as "the satellite was removed from the rocket" and put into the planned orbit about 15 minutes after the liftoff - Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-12-j...

      It's NOT attached to the ISS, it's detached and 'doing it's own thing'.

      Besides, there is an on-going research project to equip the ISS with proven ion propulsion units to provide 'station keeping' capability with the extremely efficient ion engine technology - - - just a matter of time before the requirement of using the supply launch vehicles' secondary engines to boost the ISS into a clean orbit will be a 'thing of the past'.
      Granted, the high-impulse delta-V of the secondary engines will still be needed for 'emergency' maneuvers to avoid the occasional wandering debris near-encounters, but the day-to-day orbital maintenance of the station can be relegated to very low cost ion engine technology.

      cheers . . .

      --
      redneck geek
    3. Re:about time by wagnerrp · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Space Station isn't going to be doing anything to space junk, except trying to avoid it. The supply craft is carrying this tether device to test its performance. After it drops off its payload at the Space Station and detaches, before it is de-orbited, it will unspool this tether and see if the electrodynamic drag produced matches predictions.

    4. Re:about time by rickyslashdot · · Score: 2

      This actually seems to be an economically feasible solution to de-orbiting space junk - a light-weight 'fishnet' using the earth's geomagnetic field to degrade the velocity of captured debris - no rockets, no fuel, no guidance - simply a light-weight tethering system that 'captures' or ensnares the debris and slows it enough to degrade quickly (relative speaking - days/weeks vs years/decades) and drops the junk into an atmospheric burnup.

      GO JAXA - - - wish NASA had the funding and initiative to do the same caliber of work.

      Hell, with enough publicity and embarrassment, maybe the US 'secret' programs can be convinced to re-task or multi-task the mini-shuttle being used for surveillance to carry a few dozen of these fishnets as deploy-able capsules to target the biggest pieces of space junk. This tiny mini-shuttle has proven it's ability to stay up for over a year, and with that capability (and presumably the ability to do orbital changes) it could actually do some real good - besides just being an eye-in-the-sky for our security services.

      I believe the fishnet deployment capsule could be reduced to a couple of kilograms or less (plastic shell, very thin wires, a firecracker's worth of spin/deployment energy), and using a tiny bit of fuel to launch/deploy (or even a loaded spring), could really be the beginning of the end for orbital space debris.

      --
      redneck geek
    5. Re:about time by Rei · · Score: 2

      Not exactly. I've been trying to dig up information on this, and as far as I can tell, the actual technology itself has nothing to do with space junk. It's just an electrodynamic space tether experiment - aka, using a charged tether to experience lorentz force as it moves through Earth's magnetic field, in order to move up and down. It does nothing to junk as it flies past. The only relation to junk is that they're thinking that they could use tether-boosted spacecraft to dock with pieces of junk, and then change their orbit to make them reenter. You could do that with any thrust mechanism, but this one is nice because it doesn't take fuel. Likewise, you can use this for many applications other than junk. The junk connection appears to be rather tenuous.

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    6. Re:about time by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 2

      The connection I see is that you can use it to deorbit satellites at end of life, provided the satellite was was equipped with a deployable tether. Once the tether is deployed, the deorbiting process is completely passive and automatic. This doesn't help at all with the junk that is already present however. Perhaps you could attach tethers to large existing space junk but matching orbits with them to do this would be expensive.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    7. Re:about time by atherophage · · Score: 1

      Since the oceans are now fully choked with discarded fishnets guess it follows we would pollute the cosmos with the same.

    8. Re:about time by slashrio · · Score: 1

      I thought the metal parts are already prone to energy loss from the eddy currents generated by the earths magnetic field and their relative speed. So they should come down automatically. Of course this doesn't apply to the non-metal parts which still can use this 'tether'.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    9. Re:about time by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Of course this won't work on anything in a geostationary orbit where it doesn't experience any change in magnetic field.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    10. Re:about time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "NASA had the funding and initiative to do the same caliber of work"
      NASA has spent more money than all the other space agencies on the planet combined. NASA has sent more humans, probes, and robotic devices into the solar system that than all the other space agencies on the planet. The commercial companies would not exists if they did not have access to billions of dollars worth of NASA R&D. At most they are adding some enhancements on existing technology. The US has provides more than 80% of the funding for the "International" space station.

      "multi-task the mini-shuttle "
      I am glad you brought this up because a lot of people ignore the X-37B because that would ruin the perception of the US abandoning space related endeavors. And while the X-37 could be used in conjunction with existing satellites for surveillance it could also be used as the ultimate satellite killer if necessary.

      "enough publicity and embarrassment"
      Why should the US be embarrassed for once again doing what no other country has been able to achieve? When is the rest of the world going tp step up and help push the boundaries of space exploration instead of standing around bad mouthing the US while simultaneously doing nothing but piggybacking their programs on US achievements?

    11. Re:about time by rickyslashdot · · Score: 1

      lol - good one.
      A few points of interest -
      these 'fish' nets are metal (not nylon/rayon) and would degrade quickly in the oceans waters even IF they reached the surface
      these 'fish' nets would, in all probability, disintegrate upon re-entry burnup, and not even reach the surface
      even without the above, these 'fish' nets would be REALLY few and far between, not like ocean fishing trawlers
      and, being metal, even without the salt ocean degradation, they would SINK, not float like plastics

      And, if you want to discuss the cosmos, they are large, metallic objects with large radar cross-sections, easily visible and avoidable
      and since they are large metal webs, the geo-magnetic deceleration would take them out of orbit fairly quickly

      OK, so it may have been a 'tongue-in-cheek' reply - a couple of seconds of reflection shows that they don't qualify as 'fish' net pollution

      cheers . . .

      --
      redneck geek
    12. Re:about time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would this work?
      A wire moved through a magnetic field will see a voltage across endpoints. Now, if this voltage is tapped, current is produced and you have a dynamo. And of course the dynamo will be slowed by whatever you have using up the current.

      But a tether in space isn't shorted - it is very much like a dynamo with no load. A dynamo with no load spins without resistance, and the space tether should be like that (unless I missed something.) No resistance, and therefore no de-orbiting force.

      Another problem might be space junk hitting the tether, cutting it off. Then you have more space junk, in the form of a tether . . .

    13. Re:about time by s122604 · · Score: 2

      You need to get this information to NASA IMMEDIATELY!
      I suspect they never considered it.

    14. Re:about time by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      The eddy currents are tiny in something the size of a satellite (or even ISS). That's why these experiements use long tethers (the one tried out on Shuttle was about 40km long).

      Deorbiting dead birds is a good idea for trying to prevent more clouds of junk, but there's a lot more stuff in orbit that's equally dangerous and hard to spot/rendezvous with. Even a paint fleck is hazardous and a solitary nut would be catastrophic. Something which can match orbits of known debris clouds and "sweep" them would be a very useful tool.

  3. Re:Why bother? Trump will cancel NASA by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No problem, the Japanese are stepping up now with more capability than NASA is funded to have.
    Japan looks to be joining the manned space club that the USA has decided to leave.

  4. Re:Junk-fighting technology to the ISIS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You aren't seeing the obvious benefits here. In order to deploy the netting, they have to go into orbit. Nobody said anything about them coming back down . . .at least not in one piece.

  5. Eventually, it will be named by Provocateur · · Score: 2

    And Earth will have its wish come true: our very own debris-destroyer Gundam

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    1. Re:Eventually, it will be named by Eichmil · · Score: 1

      I'm looking for a self assembling robot with a big flaming sword.

  6. Planetes by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    Of course:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    1. Re:Planetes by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Yep, their space junk fighting technology is called Hachimaki and is a guy with a chip on his shoulder.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  7. Read that wrong by bongey · · Score: 1

    Thought for a second Japan was sending it to ISIS .

  8. Japan is helping ISIS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To remove Americans from space

    This muslim problem is getting out of hand

  9. Here's an alternative solution by dyeazel · · Score: 2

    Reminds me of Quark from 1978 http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0077...

    1. Re:Here's an alternative solution by drewsup · · Score: 1

      OMG, thank you for prompting my brain, i was just thinking about this show the other day, but couldnt remember the name. After reading the IMDB, i was chagrined to learn Tim Thomerson from Transers fame played Gene/Jean the he/she character!

    2. Re:Here's an alternative solution by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Dammit thank you! I've been trying to remember the name of this for months! All I could remember was they were a garbage crew.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    3. Re:Here's an alternative solution by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      My first thought was the junk sweeper patrol in UFO (1969)

  10. Has no one heard of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Planets?

    1. Re: Has no one heard of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Planetes? Damn you autocorrect.

  11. Collector, or simple de-orbit tool? by MrLogic17 · · Score: 5, Informative

    TFA isn't clear, and mixes terminology. The summary seems to say this will act like a net to remove many little particles, but the technology is a single tether line.

    As I recall, years ago there was a tether test that generated so much power (moving through the Earth's magnetic field) that it shorted out part of the test satellite. The goal of that test, if memory serves, was to use the tether as a propulsion/braking system. Run power through to go faster, drain power out for braking. Presumable a resistance coil / heater.

    If this is that same technology, it isn't going to do anything for debris that isn't already captured or attached to the tether. Keeping a dead satellite from becoming space junk is good, but this won't help with the countless particles out there already.

    1. Re:Collector, or simple de-orbit tool? by drewsup · · Score: 1

      It melted the cable as there were impurities in its structure, this was also a test to see how much power was generated, which was quite a bit, it was to be used as a test bed for alternative power supply, but the variances in magnetic field made it rather unpredictable as to a stable-ish supply.

    2. Re:Collector, or simple de-orbit tool? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There is some more info here: http://www.ard.jaxa.jp/eng/res...

      From the statement on that site they say they want to de-orbit larger debris before it can disintegrate into smaller particles.

      I think the net idea is because of confusion about the company that made the tether, Nitto Seimo, whose main business is fishing nets. It's an impressive company, developing high tech nets and going since 1910. Still relatively small with about 250 people, and a high tech manufacturing powerhouse that manages to compete well with cheaper low tech copies.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Collector, or simple de-orbit tool? by MrLogic17 · · Score: 1

      Found a good link for those who want to know more:

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

  12. Re:Junk-fighting technology to the ISIS? by rickyslashdot · · Score: 0

    SERIOUSLY OFF-TOPIC - - - lost my mod points - otherwise a -5 for you

    --
    redneck geek
  13. Re:Junk-fighting technology to the ISIS? by rickyslashdot · · Score: 0

    SAME - - - SERIOUSLY OFF-TOPIC - - - lost my mod points - otherwise a -5 for you

    --
    redneck geek
  14. Just develop shields already... by rnmartinez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How hard can it be>? We'll probably need them for interstellar travel anyways :-P

    1. Re:Just develop shields already... by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 2

      Extremely hard. On earth, there is an atmosphere that limits the speed of projectiles. Pieces of rock in space can be sent at very large speeds at your precious spacecraft. It takes some really heavy armour plates to shield against them. And "heavy" is the dirtiest word in space travel.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    2. Re:Just develop shields already... by subk · · Score: 2

      It takes some really heavy armour plates to shield against them.

      I don't think he meant shields like Roman shields.. I think he meant shields like Star Trek shields; a field emanating from a system aboard the ship.

      --
      Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
    3. Re:Just develop shields already... by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "And "heavy" is the dirtiest word in space travel."

      Only because we have to loft everything we have out there from the bottom of a gravity well and we have a pathological aversion to using nuclear bombs under a launcher.

      If raw materials are available to build stuff in-orbit or further out then the equation changes dramatically.

  15. don't be an apologist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buddy, if the russian's where not backing their buddy, they would be making glass sculptures. There is nothing there that the west wants, and lots that we would like to see uninhabitable. Israel needs new buffer zones.

  16. My plan by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

    I thought of a similar plan some years ago: make a balloon out of some very thin light material, such that when inflated, it is very much larger than the satellite. When the satellite is at end of life, inflate the balloon (takes very little gas, as we're in a vacuum.) This greatly increases the drag against the very thin outer atmosphere of the earth. (The balloon will get punctured eventually by other space junk. Without testing, I don't know if it would deflate to smaller cross-section if this occurred. If it would deflate, we'd need countermeasures, perhaps a balloon material which hardens on UV exposure, or spraying some adhesive into the freshly inflated balloon, either way so that it has structural strength to hold shape without gas pressure.)

    This is similar to the Japanese plan in that it is a lightweight device you attach to your satellite, which deploys and end of life to speed up deorbiting. In both cases you could put the deorbit device on a dead man's switch, so that it will autodeploy should the satellite fail. I don't know which device would be more effective, except that my device is much more altitude sensitive than the Japanese tether, and that these people are smart enough to think of my balloon but chose to develop the tether.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    1. Re:My plan by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I don't know which device would be more effective, except that my device is much more altitude sensitive than the Japanese tether, and that these people are smart enough to think of my balloon but chose to develop the tether.

      Stretchy things which behave reliably in space must be difficult to come by.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:My plan by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      I didn't envision the balloon to be stretchy. Think weather balloon or hot air balloon.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    3. Re:My plan by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      Still has to sit folded up for years, then inflate reliably without puncturing, or layers sticking to each other.

    4. Re:My plan by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Mars lander airbags have the same issue.

      If the fabric can be rigidised during inflation then punctures don't matter (it doesn't matter if the fabric isn't stretched anyway). this is the principle behind the Bigelow hab module.

      We already know of suitable materials for this job (airbags and airbag pyros). The multilayer construction necessary for a hab module isn't required for this kind of operation.

      Bear in mind that balloon deceleration will require something at least 50 feet across to bring things down from LEO in a reasonable period of time, but trailing a 50 foot streamer on the end of a mile of wire would probably be easier to deploy and allow electrodynamic deceleration too.

  17. Re:Junk-fighting technology to the ISIS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ricky-shmicky, why are you shitting bricks that you are seriously off-topic about you losing mod points??
    I don't get it. -10 for you.

  18. Makes sense by johannesg · · Score: 2

    After years of research capturing large objects in the oceans, and despite all the protests by nay-sayers, finally Japan is ready to take their technology into space and in the process help all of humanity...

  19. Re:Junk-fighting technology to the ISIS? by volodymyrbiryuk · · Score: 2

    BRUH -_- did you just mix up ISS with ISIS? Really? If you won't make an effort to read the article at least read the headline carefully. Read it out loud if it helps.

    --
    sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
  20. What about... by cellocgw · · Score: 3, Funny

    Use of trawling nets in our oceans has led to the deaths of many marine mammals,most noticeably porpoises/dolphins.

    How to they plan to avoid killing all the cute space dolphins?

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  21. Space dolphins are AWESOME. by Thud457 · · Score: 2

    I think people would be more concerned about these space fish nets breaking loose, going adrift and space dolphins becoming entangled in them and drowning.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:Space dolphins are AWESOME. by webmistressrachel · · Score: 2

      And what about spaceflies? They are already endangered by all those rogue traders flying around with spacefly collectors and using them to power their jump-drives!

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    2. Re:Space dolphins are AWESOME. by haruchai · · Score: 2

      "space dolphins becoming entangled in them and drowning"

      So long and thanks for all the fishnets, you BASTARDS!!

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  22. Re:Why bother? Trump will cancel NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No problem, the Japanese are stepping up now with more capability than NASA is funded to have.
    Japan looks to be joining the manned space club that the USA has decided to leave.

    Are they planning to jettison their old person in the atmosphere or fly them into the Sun?