Using Lasers and Water Guns To Clean Space Debris

WSJdpatton writes "The collision between two satellites last month has renewed interest in some ideas for cleaning up the cloud of debris circling the earth. Some of the plans being considered: Using aging rockets loaded with water to dislodge the debris from orbit so it will burn up in the atmosphere; junk-zapping lasers; and garbage-collecting rockets."

Water is heavy

[kcbanner]

Wouldn't it be extremely expensive to send large quantities of water into orbit (also, our water supply is limited we can't be throwing it into space!)?

Re:Water is heavy

[Spazztastic]

Wouldn't it be extremely expensive to send large quantities of water into orbit (also, our water supply is limited we can't be throwing it into space!)?

But it rains! The water will come right back down eventually!

Don't question me. My logic is flawless.

Well, armchair rocket science here...

[guruevi]

But aren't all of those 'solutions' already considered?

Space garbage zapping: You'll end up with particles and debris that is smaller and more difficult to track. Given a speck of paint in space has the same effect as a bullet on earth I don't know if we really want that.

Space garbage collecting: However you try to do it, your spacecraft would have to either maneuver very very well in order not to be destroyed itself (making even more debris) or have such heavy shields that would make it nigh impossible to get into space.

Space pushing into the atmosphere: Just like garbage collecting, your spacecraft will have to be careful. On the other hand it would also be possible that with a slight miscalculation you push it into an orbit that's either much more dangerous (if it bounces instead of incinerates) or more difficult to track and clean up. Next to that some things might just give other side effects here on earth. What do you think would happen if you push an old satellite with some type of nuclear fuel into the atmosphere and it doesn't burn up completely the way you want it to and it basically becomes a dirty bomb in high orbit.

Re:Water is heavy

[sakdoctor]

Fine, use a powder made from AOL trial CDs. That's a limitless resource.

genius at work

[thedonger]

[from the slideshow attached to the article]

"The more pieces of debris up there, the more chance you'll have another collision," says space analyst Geoffrey Forden at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Wow. Just, wow.

Re:Water is heavy

[Spazztastic]

Damn! Shut up already! The average moron will totally believe your rain concept.

Apparently they do, I just was modded insightful.

Re:Water is heavy

[FooAtWFU]

Our water supply is not "limited" in any meaningful sense of the word, given the state of modern technology and engineering. All that Man has wrought pales in comparison to the vastness of the oceans.

Now, our fresh-drinkable-water supplies in places that they can be effectively used for agriculture, industry, or residential populated areas, sure, that's an entirely different story altogether.

Re:Water is heavy

[f0dder]

Won't the water just freeze and add to the debris problem?

New NASA revenue stream . . .

[BoozeRunner]

Oh wow . . . imaging having that game on-line. 1. Create a mobile base with a laser in space 2. Sell tickets on-line to shoot space debris for 5min 3. ?? 4. Profit!

Re:Water?

[mikeee]

Given the price of launching things to space, you could use scotch whiskey instead and it wouldn't affect the cost or feasibility of this plan.

Re:Water is heavy

[sjames]

It will freeze, but sublimation will take care of the problem.

Re:Water is heavy

[FatdogHaiku]

Clean, potable water is limited, we have cubic miles of stuff we can't drink or cook with... although clean sea water would be about perfectly seasoned for cooking pasta, rice, or potatoes. As for expense, it's expensive to lift anything into space, but if we don't do something soon, we are going to have to armor plate everything we send up just to get through the "shotgun zone" we are creating up there... lifting armored ships and payloads would also be expensive and would not help reduce the problem.

Thank you for being the token PlanetES post

[SuperBanana]

No shit, sherlock. Thanks to someone like you in every Slashdot story about orbital debris, every single Slashdot reader knows about PlanetES. It's not insightful, it's not informative. The manga and anime series were very popular. It's mentioned in the Wikipedia articles on the relevant subjects.

This is roughly akin to mentioning "24" in any article on Slashdot about terrorism.

Re:Water is heavy

[snowraver1]

Yeah, but magnetic force is an inverse of the distance squared. The further away the object is, you need exponentionally more power. If you wanted to pull something out of orbit, you would cause devistation as all metal objects (cars, buildings, etc) in a large area would be propelled towards your magnetic source at hypersonic speeds.

Do what the guys on Saturn did

[Anonymous Coward]

They put up lots of little moons to keep their space junk all in a single plane.

Re:Water is heavy

[codegen]

Ice sublimates into water vapor. This is the reason your ice cubes shrink in a frost free refrigerator. The lower the vapor pressure, the faster it sublimates.

Re:Water is heavy

[Tubal-Cain]

Ahhh, but how much time? The extremely low pressure would sublimate the mist rather quickly, and anything larger can be tracked for the few weeks it is up there...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Saturn

[lindseyp]

Saturns rings would like a word with you. ;)