9 Ideas For Coping With Space Junk 149
An anonymous reader writes "The space age has filled Earth's orbit with all manner of space junk, from spent rocket stages to frozen bags of astronaut urine, and the problem keeps getting worse. NASA's orbital debris experts estimate that there are currently about 19,000 pieces of space junk that are larger than 10 centimeters, and about 500,000 slightly smaller objects. Researchers and space companies are plotting ways to clean up the mess, and a new photo gallery from Discover Magazine highlights some of the proposals. They range from the cool & doable, like equipping every satellite with a high-tech kite tail for deployment once the satellite is defunct, to the cool & unlikely, like lasers in space."
The perfect solution has already been worked out (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the solution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvage_1 [wikipedia.org]
The Great Lower-Orbit Garbage Patch (Score:1, Interesting)
Lasers... (Score:5, Interesting)
This guy [ted.com] built a laser which tracks mosquitoes in a room and zaps them. Surely the technology can be adapted...
Out of dimension? (Score:3, Interesting)
Asteroids the game has suddenly become real (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Hit or Miss (Score:5, Interesting)
So what else did the article discuss? Well it mentioned the Kessler effect, which has nothing to do with dealing with space junk, but is just a model used to describe space junk. It mentioned that NASA is now putting more efforts into tracking space junk. This is important, of course, but doesn't qualify as a method for removing it or handling it (excepting the very indirect means of simply avoiding it). Then it talks about shielding spacecraft from space junk. This, of course, is necessary and current practice, but no amount of shielding (presently) will protect you from detached thermal blankets or burnt out Delta stages.
All in all, this article just seemed like a disorganized, loosely-themed, terse ramble. I usually expect better from Discover but was severely disappointed in this particular release.
Re:Lasers... (Score:5, Interesting)
Simple is Better (Score:3, Interesting)
A simple solution might be to send up a sounding rocket to the altitude where a typical debris cloud is and just release a cloud of nitrogen gas. the cloud will fall soon into the atmosphere, the sounding rocket will too. the debris field will have a short time in a very low density gas cloud, and drop in it's orbit. Normal decay will then reduce the overall problem.
Presumably, the AF knows where the debris is. Look for any clusters. Publish where and when it is going to be taken out. Unless someone objects, with a why, then do it. Probably find out who owns a lot of the back satellites that way.
Begin to get rid of the litter. We won't finish until after we start. Right now, there is no cleanup.
Maybe a first test run, then, when we can predict the outcome, a regular program of removal.
Re:Lasers... (Score:3, Interesting)
> ...a wonderful proof-of-concept demonstrator...
What concept do you think it would prove? "Hitting stuff with a laser" is not very hard and has been demonstrated many times, even in space.
Re:Economic solution: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Lasers... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a very different proof than "hitting something with a laser in space."
Re:Why all this talk about shooting it down? (Score:3, Interesting)
Every bit of trash is in a different orbit. It takes expensive fuel to change orbits. Collecting it all in one place would cost more than simply launching the same amount of stuff from the surface.
Re:Hit or Miss (Score:2, Interesting)
On the other hand, on of Discover's pages was about blowing up the debris...this makes sense, until you really think about it. The problem is that when you blow up something, it makes a huge number of new pieces, with all sorts of different velocities and orbits.
Most problems with lasers can be solved by higher power lasers. Just increase the power output and decrease the delivery time until you can turn any debris you target completely into gas or plasma. For larger objects, target a non-rotating point so it'll turn to gas and push the object out of orbit.
Re:Lasers... (Score:3, Interesting)
Having something that can do all that with enough power to actually be useful, able to do it over and over again without running out of consumables, and do that on a sane budget-that's tricky.
Agreed. This is precisely what makes it an interesting and worthwhile engineering project to work on.
Re:Hit or Miss (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder at the effectiveness of putting a very large focusable solar reflector in a high orbit, perhaps at LaGrange point 1. Such a solar sail could be used to give thrust to satellites equipped with a sail, or even large bits of space junk. Obviously it wouldn't give much Delta V to junk, but it might give some, and it would be essentially free. Junk in high orbits takes hundreds or thousands of years to de-orbit, and any means of reducing the velocity of said junk would drastically reduce that time. Additionally, with a variable focus the mirror might be pointed at solar cells of existing satellites, which could improve the thrust gained from Ion Drives, assuming enough reaction mass remains to take advantage of the extra watts.
Idle musings. Feel free to shoot me down.
Totally Lunatic Idea (Score:2, Interesting)