NASA Warns of Cluttered Space 358
Ant wrote to mention a National Geographic article looking at the cluttered nature of Near-Earth Orbit. From the article: "Since the launch of the Soviet Union's Sputnik I satellite in 1957, humans have been generating space junk. The U.S. Space Surveillance Network is currently tracking over 13,000 human-made objects larger than four inches (ten centimeters) in diameter orbiting the Earth. These include both operational spacecraft and debris such as derelict rocket bodies. 'Of the 13,000 objects, over 40 percent came from breakups of both spacecraft and rocket bodies,'Johnson said."
Human nature? (Score:5, Insightful)
Currently, and since its conception, the world's space programs have been based on the model that we can just leave shit we don't need in space. Where were the great minds of NASA to say "Wait...what is going to happen with the rocket parts we are leaving out there." We already knew of gravity and orbits, so the idea that perhaps the stuff would just fly away doesn't seem plausible.
Us as a race, and us as the most influential countries, must look to the future, and I do see improvements, however many issues as well. We do not live in a one generation world, this is a place which we must sustain indefinately (until we find a new host planet of course).
Turn the problem on its head... (Score:3, Insightful)
The key to solving this problem is to not look on it as a problem at all, but rather, as an opportunity. 'Space junk' is a bit of a misnomer....the only reason it's considered 'junk' is because no one has figured out a way to collect and reuse it. When they do, the name will change to something more along the lines of 'space salvage'.
Certainly, some types of space salvage (derelict rockets, satellite fragments, etc.) will have a higher value than others (paint flecks, rocket slag, etc.), but even the lowliest dist speck will have value, for the simple reason that it is there. Considerable time, money, and energy was invested is putting all this 'junk' into orbit, and before we blithely start to squander more time, money, and energy deorbiting them, perhaps we should consider the possibility of putting them to use where they are now.
Cleanup on aisle five (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Turn the problem on its head... (Score:5, Insightful)
While I'm up there, I'm sure I won't cause any additional space junk, either.
Re:Turn the problem on its head... (Score:2, Insightful)
I suppose in near Earth orbit, there's still a lot of the earth's gravity to overcome, but the idea seems feasible to me with some of the headlines I've been reading about improved and miniaturized lazers. Granted you'd have to defocus these strong military beams a bit to avoid vaporizing the junk.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/
Re:Turn the problem on its head... (Score:3, Insightful)
the only reason it's considered 'junk' is because no one has figured out a way to collect and reuse it
I feel the same way about toxic waste dumps. If someone would just figure out a way to use all that waste, it'd be a goldmine! No need to worry about it leaking toxic waste into groundwater, because surely someone will figure out a way to make a profit from cleaning them up.
Hoping someone finds a way to re-use what was once considered trash isn't an approach to the problem. How much of this stuff is even worth anything if you could somehow find a cheap way of bringing it back to earth un-damaged?
Looking towards the future (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Turn the problem on its head... (Score:3, Insightful)
How much of this stuff is even worth anything if you could somehow find a cheap way of bringing it back to earth un-damaged?
You're misunderstanding me. Currently it costs something on the order of $10,000 per kilogram to get an object into orbit. Even the lowliest of space junk is worth quite a bit, as this cost has already been paid. Bringing it back to earth, even if you could do it for free, would be a monumental waste of money.
don't do anything until the first accident? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ball it up (Score:4, Insightful)
The real problem is the wildly different velocities of each different piece. These things are zooming along at bullet speeds, and some weigh more than an SUV. The problem is how one neutralizes these enormous differentials in kinetic energy.
If you tried to collect them in a ball by catching them, each new piece you intercepted would smack into it, creating 1000 new pieces of debris all with wildly random vectors of their own.
Perhaps if you had some kind of foamy goop that absorbed the energy... but it has to remain pliable in a frozen vacuum.
Re:Turn the problem on its head... (Score:5, Insightful)
This phrase alone suggests that you failed to understand the concept. The point isn't to find a use for this stuff back on EARTH- but rather to find a use for it where it is, in orbit. Raw material for new rooms on the International Space Station perhaps?
Re:Turn the problem on its head... (Score:5, Insightful)
If it costs $10,000/kg to lift something to LEO, then how are you going to make any money off of salvaging this stuff? How many substances can you name that are worth the $10,000/kg needed to offset the cost of lifting a salvage collector into orbit?
How is the collector supposed to do its thing up there without having a mishap that will cause even more orbiting debris?
You can't use magnets to collect everything, it's not all magnetic debris. You can't physically catch stuff, it's too tiny and matching velocities with every little speck in order to capture them is unfeasible. Even if we managed to put up a space elevator to bring down the cost-to-orbit of a salvage collector, you still have a problem of matching vectors with every little piece of debris you want to capture.
There might be solutions for this problem, but salvaging it is not going to be economically feasible. Not unless you can convince a collector's market that the stuff is worth way more than it actually is, like with baseball cards.
No, the real value will be in clearing out a safe launch corridor, or providing that as a service -- not in the stuff you bring back.
NASA World Wind plug-in (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Breakdown by Country (Score:2, Insightful)
"No matter what your interested in, no matter how esoteric you might think it is, there is a magazine about it."
Re:Turn the problem on its head... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is this a problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, there are a lot of objects up there (spent rocket stages, dead satellites) that stand a good chance of exploding as they age (from leaking hypergolic propellants, etc.), which tends to generate lots and lots of chunks that are too small to track but big enough to cause said VBD.