Slashdot Mirror


Space Junk Successfully Captured In Orbit For the First Time (with Video) (surrey.ac.uk)

"The Surrey Space Center successfully used a net to capture a piece of artificial space junk in orbit for the first time in history on Sunday," writes Slashdot reader dmoberhaus. "The video was just released Wednesday and is quite stunning."

"Not only does the net look cool as hell, it's addressing a major problem for the future of space exploration," reports Motherboard: The test was carried about by the RemoveDEBRIS satellite, an experimental space debris removal platform built by an international consortium of space companies and university research centers. There are tens of thousands of pieces of fast-moving space junk in orbit, which range from the centimeter-scale all the way to entire rocket stages. Some of these pieces are moving faster than a bullet and all of them pose a serious danger to other satellites and crewed capsules... Removing this junk from orbit is particularly challenging because of the various sizes of the debris, its erratic tumbling motion, and the fact that some pieces are moving as fast as 30,000 miles per hour.
The successful experiment follows six years of Earth-based testing, according to a professor at the lead research institution, the Surrey Space Centre.

"While it might sound like a simple idea, the complexity of using a net in space to capture a piece of debris took many years of planning, engineering and coordination."

66 comments

  1. Fuck yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck yeah

    1. Re: Fuck yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Not only does the net look cool as hell,â
      Thereâ(TM)s no sound on the video?!

  2. Nice catch.... by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 2

    But now what? Looks like they just added to the mass of the trash.

    1. Re:Nice catch.... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      Deploy an air brake, increase drag, deorbit both.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    2. Re:Nice catch.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      But now what? Looks like they just added to the mass of the trash.

      According to TFA they're testing out several other technologies, then they're going to deorbit the mass, destroying it in the atmosphere.

    3. Re:Nice catch.... by pilaftank · · Score: 2

      But now what? Looks like they just added to the mass of the trash.

      Oh, you thought this was to clean up space junk?

      All your satellite are belong to us.

      --
      dna.js
    4. Re:Nice catch.... by dohzer · · Score: 1

      And where's the video of that? It's like one of those free videos that end before the real action starts.

    5. Re:Nice catch.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no video because it never happened. The dromedary aviator is correct, this only served to add to the orbiting trash.

    6. Re:Nice catch.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's bactrian. I can't believe you would assume his taxonomy.

  3. Language by AlanObject · · Score: 1

    We need better language to discuss these things in the lay media. Or maybe use the language we have better.

    Yeah it sounds awesome and scary to say "moving as fast as 30,000 miles per hour!" (gasp) but relative to what? If I am in the same orbit it is moving as "slow as 0 miles per hour!" But that isn't scary enough to say.

    What I would like to have heard is some sort of detail about what types of launches and deployments are at risk. Maybe list desirable orbits that would be problematic. But of course that kind of copy also isn't scary enough (gasp) so I guess it is too much to ask for.

    That said this is a great achievement and yes it is only a matter of time before space debris causes some catastrophe. Mitigating the risk is well worth the expense. Maybe that's something that Trump's "Space Force" can focus on.

    1. Re:Language by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Informative

      nothing in orbit around the earth can go 30,000 MPH with respect to the ground though, that's some serious rounding! just over 25,000 MPH is the max, otherwise it's leaving

    2. Re:Language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The speed the matters, closing speed with another object can.

    3. Re:Language by spaceman375 · · Score: 1

      Just because you are at the same distance from the planet as another piece of matter does not mean you are in the same orbit. Something more elliptical when you cross paths may be quite an encounter.
            Or it could be in the same orbit, but going the other way. Wham!

      --
      On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
    4. Re:Language by helpfulcorn · · Score: 1

      It reminds me of those really poor analogies about space travel in general, things like "standing on either side of a house and throwing balls up and trying to make them hit in an exact spot" or something with two bullets fired blindly needing to hit each other exactly right, not realising there's still a fundamental difference from just throwing/shooting something, letting it go, and being able to use your thrusters to re-position yourself.

      It just makes it seem like they're trying to make something which is difficult and dangerous sound yet more difficult and dangerous, and in fact insanely reckless and blind. I've had to explain to quite a few of people over the last few decades that, no, going to the moon is not like trying to shoot two guns and have the bullets hit each other. It was really bad when the Apollo 13 movie came out, there's at least a couple of these bad analogies in the script or in media coverage about the film.

      The media loves these simple analogies even if they're totally wrong though, asking them to come up with new language, all you can do is provide them with a nonsensical analogy that sounds vaguely correct so long as you don't think about it.

    5. Re:Language by AlanObject · · Score: 1

      nothing in orbit around the earth can go 30,000 MPH with respect to the ground though, that's some serious rounding! just over 25,000 MPH is the max, otherwise it's leaving

      Even with an elliptical orbit at perigee? Or does escape velocity still apply regardless?

    6. Re:Language by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Around 25000 mph is escape velocity even at lowest conceivable perigee levels.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re:Language by mcswell · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I was going to post that, but you beat me to it.

      I wonder if they meant 30,000 km/hr. That would be just about right for a very low altitude satellite.

    8. Re:Language by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      I like to explain it like trapeze artists on swings.

      One of them wants to let go of their swing, and do a flip, and then grab the arms of the other one on the other swing. They're both going to have to be at the right place and moving in just the right direction to do it.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    9. Re:Language by helpfulcorn · · Score: 1

      That's actually a much better analogy, consider it officially stolen, sir!

    10. Re:Language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's actually a much better analogy, consider it officially stolen, sir!

      I always wondered why no one ever tried to capture the objects in such a way that it does not directly translate to a direct impact but more so that it translates to rotational energy of the captured satellite, I know in som cases this is still going to result in a neat hole in your capturing satellite, but you still took it out of orbit. rinse repeat.. practical or not? 110010001000 does this work seeing as you went to Harvard and all?

  4. Typical, the US makes most of the mess by captbollocks · · Score: 0, Troll

    And the rest of the world has to fix it....

    1. Re:Typical, the US makes most of the mess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The next time the "world" fixes anything will be the first time. Oh by they way this was a joint effort by many different international companies and research universities but as usual the majority of the funding was extracted from the US participants. One other notable piece of information is that the US Space Command is the only group capable of locating, tracking, and classification of orbital debris over a certain size.

      It seems one of the hardest things to accomplish when netting space junk would be making sure you do not capture any functioning pieces in orbit.

    2. Re:Typical, the US makes most of the mess by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      The "rest of the world" is increasingly adding to the junk, including things like Chinese tests of anti-satellite weapons leaving clouds of shrapnel where there used to be just one old dead satellite. Thanks, world.

      As for the US "making most of the mess," yeah - and the "rest of the world" has for a long time been happily making use of the stuff we've put in orbit. Let me guess: you'd like to see the rest of the world permanently eclipse space activity, and then ignore the wake that all of that activity leaves behind it, because Everywhere Else = Good, US = Bad.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Typical, the US makes most of the mess by captbollocks · · Score: 1

      One other notable piece of information is that the US Space Command is the only group capable of locating, tracking, and classification of orbital debris over a certain size.

      Why is it notable? It wasn't done for altruistic purposes, it was created so that not only space junk is tracked, but also everyone else satellites and nukes of course.

      Not sure about the US funding it though, but if you have a source that says otherwise then I stand corrected.

    4. Re:Typical, the US makes most of the mess by captbollocks · · Score: 1

      The "rest of the world" is increasingly adding to the junk, including things like Chinese tests of anti-satellite weapons leaving clouds of shrapnel where there used to be just one old dead satellite. Thanks, world.

      I think the Chinese wanted to be like the US, they beat you on carbon emissions, now they beat you on space junk in one go.

      Next, is aircraft carriers, although they are pretty well considered obsolete now, so it is probably not worthwhile going after that feather.

    5. Re: Typical, the US makes most of the mess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aircraft carriers project force and influence. They're floating cities. They are not obsolete by any stretch of the imagination!

    6. Re:Typical, the US makes most of the mess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the rest of the world has to fix it....

      You must be British.
      Sorry that your country isn't important in the scheme of things.
      Even the Canadians matter a hell of a lot more, and they don't even try to.

    7. Re:Typical, the US makes most of the mess by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      And the rest of the world has to fix it....

      "Yes, son . . . it's a mess now . . . but some day . . . we hope to build a home on it!

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    8. Re: Typical, the US makes most of the mess by mcswell · · Score: 1

      Depends on the kind of war. In a war with a country like Iraq, Iran, Syria...or just about any country except China or Russia, you're absolutely right. If a shooting war started with China or Russia, a carrier would be...a target. You could probably put all the frigates, DDGs, cruisers etc. you wanted around it, and they could shoot down a bunch of stuff, but one nuke gets through and you're out. (I suspect you were referring to force and influence in the former kind of situation, not the latter, so I'm not really disagreeing with you, just pointing out a limiting case.)

      Disclaimer: I was on a DDG for three years, a long time ago in a war far away.

    9. Re: Typical, the US makes most of the mess by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Call it a "nuclear picket" if you'd like. I suspect that if a carrier disappears, somebody's cities will be at serious risk.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  5. Might I add.. by NEDHead · · Score: 1

    Red Dwarf

    1. Re:Might I add.. by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      More like DS-12 Toybox.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  6. FTA: "Space Junk" they deployed by doug141 · · Score: 4, Informative

    They deployed a target for their capture device test. It wasn't found space junk.

    1. Re:FTA: "Space Junk" they deployed by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well then. I suppose we should be thankful that they weren't trying to rescue drowning kittens.

    2. Re:FTA: "Space Junk" they deployed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is correct. But that is not how click bait is headlined. You make a headline that is remotely associated with the article and then you post that. People click and you've won. Do you think that there would have been as many clicks if the headline had read "Space junk capture system tested in space." More accurate but far fewed hits and ad revenue generation.

      The truth is never out there!

    3. Re:FTA: "Space Junk" they deployed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think that there would have been as many clicks if the headline had read "Space junk capture system tested in space."

      Maybe. The audience an article such as this is intended for might be just as likely to care/click either way. Someone more indifferent to the topic might not even know or notice the difference. If anything TFA likely annoys knowledgeable readers.

  7. 9M to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At this rate we'll be done in 3657 CE.

  8. Ionization by juanhf · · Score: 1

    Has anyone tried ionization?

    1. Re:Ionization by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Has anyone tried ionization?

      Sorry, I don't see Orbital Capture Vehicle in the Sharper Image catalog ...

      [ Thinking of Michael from The Good Place ]

      Michael: Okay, I know what you're thinking. Birth is a curse, and existence is a prison. But don't think about that. Don't be sad, you guys. Focus on something great like Drakkar Noir which I am wearing a lot of tonight. Or the Sharper Image Catalog. What can't those guys ionize?

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re: Ionization by juanhf · · Score: 1

      Dude, I got three kids from two baby mamas and although tough life does not suck. Perhaps your daddy didn't give you enough hugs. And, Drakkar Noir is awful pewww ugh!

  9. Not what it says on the tin by craighansen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This wasn't even a piece of space junk - it was a object purposely made and launched from the mother satellite. This reduces the complexity by major factors: 1) this junk was of the perfect size and shape to be captured by the net 2) it was nearly matched in speed to the capture net 3) it was at nearly the same velocity (speed and directly) 4) it was in the exact effing orbit. 5) The resulting combination then slowly de-orbits, using up all the equipment.

    This means that you have to have one of these gizmos for each piece of junk. If you boost several gizmos at once with one mothership that has all the maneuvering capability, you're going to use up lots of maneuvering fuel to match orbits with each object. If you boost each gizmo separately, you'll need even more boost fuel.

    1. Re:Not what it says on the tin by craighansen · · Score: 1

      s/directly/direction/

    2. Re:Not what it says on the tin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This wasn't even a piece of space junk

      It would become one if the test had failed :)

    3. Re: Not what it says on the tin by warm_warmer · · Score: 1

      It would have been at least two...

  10. Alternative use by petes_PoV · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Presumably the same technology can be scaled to bring down the other guy's satellites, too.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  11. And if it misses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it orbit the earth until it snags a real satellite?

  12. Been done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They did that on Firefly

  13. Some of these pieces are moving faster than a bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something close to 100% of them.

  14. Next challenges by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    This is an achievement, but we have harder challenges to solve: remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and remove plastics from the oceans.

    1. Re: Next challenges by warm_warmer · · Score: 1

      One of those is a challenge actually worth figuring out.

    2. Re:Next challenges by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Plastic will remove itself soon after we stop adding to it.

  15. Re:AC Successfully Captures First Post by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    But have you ever been able to successfully capture your junk?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  16. Sounds like Planetes by Letophoro · · Score: 1
    I never read the manga, but I enjoyed the anime.

    Here's a link to the Wikipedia page about it.

  17. Angled thick metal panel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An huge ion-thrusted orbitting angled thick metal panel is enough to plough the oubit sent all the derbis back to earth.

  18. space junk by mcswell · · Score: 1

    What, them Chinese is sailing junks in space too? I seen 'em in the Gulf of Tonkin, but getting them into space...that's a wow.

    1. Re:space junk by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they blew one of them up and made lot's of little junks floatin' around up there.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  19. Looks like a weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks more economical for this to be used to capture an "enemy" satellite than capture the myriad of metallic shrapnel in orbit.

  20. It barely worked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    From the video it looks like the net began to collapse and almost missed the "debris". Why they didn't introduce a rotation in the net (kind of like a bola) to give it a bit of inherent tension and stability I can't understand. Also I'm not quite sure of the effectiveness of their drag chute idea as most debris are located above 500km where atmospheric drag is pretty low no matter what your surface area is. You might be better off either rigging some kind of electrodynamic tether system (assuming you could make it extremely small/simple) or just retracting the debris back to some kind of storage basket on the satellite and holding on to it until you've collected a dozen or so debris and then deorbiting the whole thing.

  21. Need high powered lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To shoot this stuff out of orbit.

    I wonder how much space junk is "space poo" from the ISS, etc?

  22. Anonomous Cowards Debunk NASA! by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    It's anonymous cowards, all the way down.

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  23. Great by Trogre · · Score: 1

    It's hard to watch the end of that video without thinking, "now what?".

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you have a bigger piece of junk. Easier to spot.

  24. Hah Devo did this 38 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well she was walking all alone
    Down the street in the alley
    Her name was Sally
    I never touched her, she never saw it
    When she was hit by space junk
    When she was hit by space junk
    When she was hit by space junk ....