More on Orbital Space Debris 275
wvanhuffel writes "This is a call for /.'s to put their thinking caps on. The US Airforce, NASA and other agencies are looking for ideas to find and eliminate threats from space debris to craft (space, in the use of).
Personally I like the idea of "robots to serve as roving garbage scowls" - my question is "How do they identify 'garbage'?" - Would the ISS qualify?" I don't know what happened to the laser broom.
Sticky Umbrella (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously this only works for grit and other small things.
TWW
Re:Sticky Umbrella (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sticky Umbrella (Score:2, Interesting)
But there are "useful-only" orbits that we want clear. You would have to do some sort of analysis of how long a given size disc would have to be in orbit to clear it to a specific level of safety.
Well, it was just an idea.
TWW
Energy Usage (Score:2)
Energy consumption can be dealt with in terms of nuclear propulsion. We've done it before in space - not sure the ramifications of using it in near-earth orbit, though.
I know that a large quantity of what's up there has solar power - I'm not versed well enough to know if we can easily convert solar power into movement (I imagine we can, though). If solar could be used it would cut huge amounts of money off the project. Of course, it the Debris Collection Satellite might have to sit and charge for a while to be prepared to chase debris.
Right now we track much of our orbital debris with radar, but we lose decent resolution around 10 cm. Tracking from a satellite could be much better, as we don't have to account for weather and variables, like birds (hopefully ;). This would allow us to determine what's up there.
The hard part is getting everyone to tell whoever is doing the cleanup what needs to stay up there. Multiple countries, companies, all would have to either provide the location of their equipment to not have it damaged/destroyed, or make a massive effort to have it all change orbit so we could clear an orbit at a time.
I like the theorum of throwing things back into the atmosphere, but I think it would be better to collect it, say, at the ISS, and attempt some sort of salvage. There is millions of dollars in technology floating around up there unused, so why not save on launch costs if some of it can be reclaimed?
Of course, collecting technology with the untent to re-use it would be even more expensive...
--
Curiouser and Curiouser...
Re:Sticky Umbrella (Score:2)
In a bold move yesterday, president Bush declared that a sticky umbrella would save us from meteorites
Deja Vu, No? (Score:2, Insightful)
And before you get modded up further, small pieces of grit are capable of creating holes in the the space shuttle's windshield. [aero.org]
Re:Sticky Umbrella (Score:5, Insightful)
How about a large dish coated with a think layer of soft material which you put into an orbit you want to clean and after its been there for a while fire the retros and burn the lot up in the atmosphere.
For some reason, one thing I haven't seen people mention so far in this thread is the fact that to be in orbit at a given height above Earth, you have to be travelling at a very specific orbital velocity. So the umbrella either has to be going with the flow, in which case it's not going to catch up to any of the space debris (unless the debris has an eccentric orbit), or against the flow, in which case it is going to impact the space debris with a very high velocity.
I suppose a third option is to have it going with the flow, but faster than orbital velocity, in which case it's going to need a lot of fuel... (remember, a spacecraft has to eject balast every time it changes direction, otherwise conservation of momentum would be violated.)
-a
Re:Sticky Umbrella (Score:2)
I was assuming that the debris would be in an eccentric orbit and that some number of "umbrella orbits" would be needed to reach a desired level of confidence.
TWW
Re:Sticky Umbrella (Score:2)
Not that it matters too much. How much junk is in a precisely circular orbit?
That's what I'm wondering about. NASA is mostly concerned about man-made junk, right? I figure there must be some rules about where you put this stuff, just like air traffic control. You don't want expensive satellites colliding. I bet most of the satellites are in a circular orbit, and if random debris gets knocked off of a satellite, it will probably stay in a near-circular orbit as well.
The problem with the swath approach is that you're not going to get much change in speed unless you choose a fairly eccentric orbit, and in that case you will be spending quite a lot of time outside the swath.
-a
Re:Sticky Umbrella (Score:2)
-a
Water Balloons To Save The World (Score:2, Insightful)
How about Nerf? But it might not be so "squishy" in a vacuum, particularly if the soft foam has volatiles which evaporate. But you just want to slow down an impacting object - if it embeds itself that's fine, but merely slowing it will also help the junk fall from orbit sooner.
A disc might not be the right design. Just a balloon full of honey or syrup. "This Orbit Clearance Service Uses And Paid For By Jello"
Actually, you'd need to use a material which is not too volatile. When exposed to vacuum the material should not boil away nor have the surface harden so it can not be penetrated easily enough. Not that an object hitting at orbital speeds will be easy to stop from penetrating...
There is an awful lot of empty space up there, so the odds of hitting anything is small. But if there is indeed a 1% chance of a satellite being destroyed in a year, there must be an awful lot of junk. A Space Shuttle can carry up a 15-foot by 90-foot cargo, which could create a rather large absorbent blob. Especially if you use balloons full of foam and create the foam from much smaller liquids, so the 15x90 volume gets multiplied to a much larger volume.
Flight of the Dragonfly || The Wooden Spaceships (Score:2)
Yah, starting with the Moon... oops.
If you could get Venus to flip the Moon away without a collision, you could wind up with a situation not unlike Robert L Forward's Rocheworld from Flight of the Dragonfly [amazon.com] where the ocean sloshes between Earth and Venus (fsssssh!) - but I don't think we'd be very talented Flouwen; or Bob Shaw's Land and Overland from The Wooden Spaceships [amazon.com] which involves hot-air ballooning from planet to planet and battles with muzzle-loading cannon and solid-fuel rockets in zero G (but in atmosphere).
PS, I've greatly enjoyed reading everything of Robert Forward's that I've laid hands on, especially the Dragon's Egg [amazon.com] series. Bob Shaw not so, but I did like TWS.
BTW, we may know how to move planets, but that is probably the main reason for us not doing so. Our accountants forbid it. Like Archimedes, we `lever alone'.
Re:Why destroy it? (Score:2)
Genuine Space Debris (lug nut). No reserve. Includes NASA certificate of authenticity.
Admit it, what geek wouldn't want a piece of the soyuz or the Mir, or what have you?
How do they know if it's trash? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How do they know if it's trash? (Score:1)
How about... (Score:1)
Make a satellite that's nothing more than a huge electro-magnet, launch it, turn it on, attract junk, do either a controlled descent or shoot off towards the sun (or other nearby, large orbital body.)
Re:How about... (Score:1)
But to be able to shoot off debris sounds far over the top. But then again, what do I know?
Anyone who have worked with high capacity electromagnets care to comment?
Re:How about... (Score:1)
Just an Idea...
Does this work on Ceramic Material? (Score:2, Informative)
Just curious as I am under the impression that not all of the debris is composed of ferrous material that could be affected by a large magnet. Some of the debris is little more then chips of paint that fell off of satellites, shuttles and other space craft.
Simple. (Score:1, Interesting)
The Amazing Nasa Lead Plate? (Score:1)
Amazing Nasa Lead Plate Of Kubrick/Clarke? (Score:1)
Massive bonus points to Nasa for naming it the Kubrick/Clarke debris sweeper, as its a blimmin' huge 1x4x9 block of black dense stuff.
'Handjob' (Score:1)
If this is a cost only thing, shouldn't the countries/companies that have 'polluted' the 'area' pay for the cleaning themselves? If not I'll bet you that some distant russian company already offers this service if you are a youg popstar or you just are loaded with cash.
Force Fields? (Score:1)
what are some of the common protections/ideas used in sci fi against interstellar/orbital debris.
I think trying to locate every nut and bolt leftover in space is not feasible...and those small items are probably the most dangerous as they are difficult, if not impossible to detect...right?
Re:Force Fields? (Score:2)
The answer is simple (Score:1)
Here it comes... (Score:5, Funny)
I await with glee the hoards of posts suggesting enormous ballistic inflatable penguins and fleets of linux powered robotic red swingline staplers. But what about prevention in the future? Easy, just make all space objects run Windows, that way they will crash themselves into the blue ocean of death eventually.
There, I've got it out of the way early so hopefully others won't need to.
what abou the space pen? (Score:3, Insightful)
When the obvious solution (used by the Russians) was to use a pencil...
I think that having this kind of question opened to anybody can only help...
Re:what abou the space pen? (Score:3, Informative)
Not true. Check out http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.ht
Re:what abou the space pen? (Score:2)
Re:Here it comes... (Score:2)
Don't make it worse (Score:3, Insightful)
And while we are at it .. (Score:1)
How about writing legislation that says people can't litter. That'll keep the Earth clean. And maybe fine people for littering - that'll be a good incentive.
What do you mean that we already have that??
Adhesive tape and a large hand (Score:3, Funny)
I believe however, in consultation with my mother, that this might still be applied to the above problem. I propose a giant space hand, sheathed in cellotape and waved liberally about in orbit would be the best method.
Distinguish between working and non working.. (Score:1)
Nanotech is the answer (Score:2)
There's only one potential problem I can imagine with this scenario. We'd need to figure out how to teach the nanobots the difference between functional satellites and nonfunctional trash. It wouldn't be good at all if we suddenly found that our nanobots had accidentally disassembled all our low-orbit satellites.
Now that I think about it, though, it occurs to me that nanobots would most likely be very susceptible to solar radiation, which they wouldn't be protected from outside Earth's atmosphere. I wonder how hard it would be to construct radiation-shielded nanobots?
Re:Nanotech is the answer (Score:2)
Quite right. Also, once the technology is available, teleporting the debris to the centre of the sun wouldn't be that hard or costly either.
Re:Nanotech is the answer (Score:2)
Nanotbot .. Garbage (Score:2, Interesting)
You need to *remove* the garbage from orbit, not just transform it from one sort of item to another.
Now if they could all assemble together into one big nanobot ball as the process progresses, then that would be another thing. But if they are delicate little beasties, then I can't see that happening.
Re:Nanotbot .. Garbage (Score:2)
Now imagine these nanobots disassembling space debris into its component atoms and dispersing it. Instead of having, say, an old rocket booster casing that could do massive amounts of damage to an orbiting spacecraft, you now have trillions of individual, unconnected atoms that are being dispersed over a wide area. These dispersed atoms aren't even visible, and they certainly wouldn't do any damage to spacecraft. And that's the goal here.
Who cares if the actual atoms themselves remain in orbit, as long as they're dispersed enough that they can't hurt anything?
Re:Nanotech is the answer (Score:3, Funny)
Hack it. (Score:2)
Oh dear God, that'd be the BEST! Imagine being able to hack a garbage collection satellite, and knock random satellites out of orbit.
Some people consider defacing Yahoo as having enough people see. Imagine having a flickering bright light fall over the city of your choice.
Damn I... uhhm, I can't wait to get my friend... ummm, yeah, my friend more information on how to hack... Ummm, yeah.
"How do they identify 'garbage'?" (Score:1)
A lot of work (Score:3, Interesting)
1.Catalogue them -- A database with all known objects and their orbits is the obvious first step
2.Build a sateliite with a relatively low power laser, charged by solar panels. An alternative would be a simple kind of large, thick metal "shield" that would simply get in the way of the space debris.
3.Place a ion engine on the craft.
4.Write software that would automatically select the nearest target from the db and move the satelite into position to evaporate or impact with the debris.
5.Very importantly, have an operator or command center that would be required by the software to OK each impact so that the satelite doesn't get misused or highjacked.
6.If using the satelite with a big metal "target shield", eventually the shield will become useless. It can be pushed into reentry by the ion engine and can then burn up on reentry, the ion engine then climbs back into normal orbit and is fitted out with a new shield by a drone rocket.
7.It will take many years but will start to show progress over time. Good that it will give the operators in the command center work and enable them to read books, playgames etc inbetween hits.
Re:A lot of work (Score:1)
Re:A lot of work (Score:2)
It's kind of like thinking ahead in billiards about where your ball will be after the shot.
Re: Software algorithms (Score:2)
Sounds a lot to me like the algorithms required would have a lot in common with some well-known CS research problems, like the moving of the head of a hard disk. I'm sure some existing knowledge could be applied, but the space junk problem could also be a source of new research money...
Christopher
Re:A lot of work (Score:2)
Here's a story [af.mil] about it from Air Force News.
Simple (Score:2)
Send a bunch of these up and send them to the predicted "hot spots." Over a period of a few years, they could absorb quite a bit of material. Being low-tech, they're cheap to make. Costly to get into orbit because of the weight, but seems like it could be affordable enough.
How would this work (Score:1)
Um, Helo...... (Score:2)
Just fly up and use a tractor beam to tow it into the Sun. Duh.
An collector in space is impractical (Score:3, Insightful)
Why launch anything into orbit at all? A far better solution would be to build a powerful enough ground based laser system to convert the garbage into vapor. It would be cheaper, as you would not have to spend vast sums of money trying to minimize failures (if the laser on the ground breaks, you get out tools and fix it. If the orbital robot breaks you just blew a lot of money). To detect the rapidly moving orbital debris you would need an extremely high resolution radar...at least one of the X band things being build in Alaska.
The laser would be an array of linear accelerators in parallel (or cyclotrons) that would accelerate electrons that would release the energy in the beam. (A free electron laser) Such lasers are inherently very efficient, and the system would only use electric power that could be obtained off an ordinary power grid (a LOT of electric power...you'd need some sort of temporary storage perhaps giant rotating drums or something)
And the best part? A multi-megawatt laser array, capable of hitting extremely small fast moving targets with enough power to vaporize them...
Certainly the Pentagon could think of a use for one of those.
Say, missile defense?
Such a system would be FAR more reliable than a rocket booster interceptor that has THOUSANDS of possible points of failure. If the wrong part fails, the booster fails. With a parallel array of lasers if one fails its no big deal. In addition, given enough power it would be able to vaporize all the incoming targets, decoys and bits of insulation and all.
Ground based laser not practical (Score:3, Insightful)
How can you possibly believe that?
First, a laser on the ground would have to have a crapload of power since the vast majority of it would be dissipated by the atmosphere.
Next you have to refine the optics to an extremely high degree so that the beam is still focused at the target. Even the slightest bit of divergence really adds up over hundreds of kilometers. To vaporize high tensile strength steel requires a lot of energy, and most of these objects are very small -- both are reasons for needing a focused beam.
Also consider that they are traveling at tens of thousands of MPH. It would be almost impossible to servo track the object, so your laser would have to work with a single high-energy pulse. You'll need a very high peak pulse power to deliver enough energy to do any serious damage. And this ignores the fact that we can't actually track the majority of the debris. The ground based laser thing would need extremely precise tracking information which is just not available for anything but the large stuff -- which we can already do a fine job of working around. Also consider the aiming accuracy necessary to precisely hit a small target a few centimeters or smaller from hundreds or thousands of kilometers away. Then there's the issue of all the crap in the way between your laser and the target which could cause diffraction, scattering, dissipation, etc.
In the 80s the Star Wars thing was going to cost how many billions (75?) to disable (not totally vaporize as you propose) much larger objects traveling at more certain orbits, and was called a technical impossibility by many engineers who read the proposal. And even this plan would have used space-based lasers so the distances and dissipation factors was not as bad.
What you are proposing would never work. Get real.
Re:Ground based laser not practical (Score:2)
How about a laser based on the ISS? Would solve most of your objections. In space, it wouldn't have to go thru the atmosphere or as far, and since the space station is orbiting like the trash, it would be much easier to track. Put some radar on the space station, hook it up to the laser, and fire away. The only consern is making sure the earth isn't behind the shot (in case you miss), but other than that, it should work.
Re:Ground based laser not practical (Score:2)
Though, thinking about it, might this be the excuse for spacecraft to get armed? "Of course I've got a giant freakin' laser on this bird. Gotta shoot down any debris that get too close, don'tcha know. True, I could also fux0r any other ships or sats that I don't like that I happen to get close to - or who get close to me, say if they try to board to enforce whatever law is up here - but in the name of clearin' debris, the laser itself is perfectly legit."
Re:Ground based laser not practical (Score:2)
The US Air Force has an airborne laser designed to destroy missile boosters at a range of 200 miles - THROUGH THE atmosphere. So much for dissipation.
Optics that can resolve small details of satellites have been around for a long time. If you can see the detail, you can focus a beam on it. And this is without adaptive optics, and these days adaptive optics are what would be used.
As far as tracking.... no problem. Remember a couple of things... they are quite a ways off. They are travelling in a ballistic path - very smooth trajectory. And furthermore, the imaging cameras I described above had to be able to do that tracking in order to do the imaging. They ahve been running a long time. The Multiple Mirror Telescope, for example, has that tracking capability (yes, it is an astronomical instrument, but it was paid for by the Air Force, used spare spy satellite mirrors, and has an AZ/EL mount, and the Air Force used to borrow it for their own quiet purposes). It had that capability in the early 80's when I visited the site.
Oh, and star wars?
I won't even bother to refute the various errors you managed to stick into a couple of sentences.
I don't know if a ground based laser system is appropriate, but I do know that the previous posters objections are based on ignorance, not science or engineering.
My favourite solution (Score:2)
Moving asteroids isn't that hard, although care is needed to ensure you don't reenter it. An asteroid big enough to make this work would be big enough to wipe out all life on earth- so be careful out there guys. ;-)
Re:My favourite solution (Score:2)
Obligatory Spaceballs reference (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obligatory Spaceballs reference (Score:2)
"She's gone from suck to blow" indeed. ^_-
Just need a sign (Score:2, Funny)
All those I've seen on Earth are surrounded by empty drink cans, cigarette packs, discarded condoms, etc. Maybe the effect also works in space.
Lasers! (Score:2)
NBC beat 'em by almost a quarter century (Score:2, Funny)
See the IMDB for the details [imdb.com]
Where's Wilco when you need him!?! (Score:5, Funny)
Use the RIAA execs (Score:2)
Re:Use the RIAA execs (Score:2)
Nitpick (Score:2, Informative)
That should be "strongest material fullstop". The inference to natural materials can only be referring to spider silk. Spider dragline silk has a tensile strength comparable to steel, but will stretch 35% without breaking. It seems steel can achieve up to about 5 Gpa in tensile strength depending on quality, etc. Carbon nanotube fibres [nasa.gov] are expected to be in the hundreds of Gpa.
There is a cautious belief amongst materials scientists that carbon nanotubes may in fact be the strongest substance possible in terms of tensile strength.
A great overview of nanotubes as a construction material can be found in Bradley Edward's Space Elevator manuscript [usra.edu]. See also the slashdot discussion [slashdot.org] about it.
Salvage the materials!!!! (Score:2)
collect the debris with bots and use it as mass (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's turn that space debris to raw materials. Clean up LEO, cut down the amount of stuff that needs to be hauled up the gravity well, and make money doing it.
Build a system of robots that finds debris, cuts it up, hauls it to a refuse station, and reduces it to a reusable form.
You use three types of robots.
Many small mobile bots (solar powered and ion-engine driven) find space debris and boost it to collecting spots.
The second type chops up debris and boosts it to stable higher orbits. More of the second type intersect at the higher orbit and bring debris to the third type, which
vaporizes the debris (no big deal in space with unlimited solar power and no atmosphere), charges the vapor, and shoots the charged vapor down a long tube with a magnetic system designed to act like a big mass spectrometer, separating the vapor by composition and leaving hunks of iron, silicon, etc.
Or use a low tech but more high maintenance design and spin the stuff to separate it. Either way you've got raw materials enough to say, triple the speed they're building the ISS with even the junk materials usable for shielding.
Seems to me that this system could be built by graduate students from a school like Carnegie-Mellon for five or six million dollars, tops.
Notes:If you think that solar power is too wimpy consider that with two or three hundred collectors in orbit it's no big deal if it takes a given collector six months to bring in a load. Also, the collectors can be programmed to keep a bit of debris and coat themselves in it, protecting them from radiation and prolonging their own useful life. Give the collectors swappable boards and perhaps a two year board replacement cycle and they should last for at least a decade each.
As for how to get them up there armadillo aerospace and the like are more than capable of boosting plenty of small payloads to low earth orbit in the near future. Chances are the toughest issue would be the legal fooforah of who owns the abandoned gear. Guaranteed that as soon as people figure out that their dead telsat has market value LLoyds will be fighting the salvage declaration.
So, if anybody wants to do this, look me up.
Rustin H. Wright
Information Geek, former inventor, founder and publisher, Reed&Wright
pubgeek@netscape.net
It was solved in 1978 (Score:2, Funny)
Is orbital debris statistical info available? (Score:2)
Christopher
Recycling, anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
Wouldn't it than be smarter to accumulate all the space junk in a big orbital junkyard?
This could also include all the obsolete satelites currently burned down in the atmosphere.
Next to this junkyard there could be an orbital factory using the scrap metal and other debris for raw materials.
Furthermore, this facility wouldn't be *THAT* expensive to build, and i.e. the accumulation of all the used satelites in the same place would be trivial, by programming their final thrust to get them to the place. The compound in question could use solar energy, and be fully automatic.
Building the trivial things, like the replacement solar panels for the ISS as well as other relatively easy to produce things in space would seem like a wiser way to deal with stuff that cost millions to launch up there!
Big Ass Russian Boosters (Score:2)
Time to break out the ol' 'Missile Command'... (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's launch a bunch of satellites into orbit with lasers or some kinetic energy weapon and wire them into video game consoles back on the ground here. Kids can drop $.50 for a chance to blast away at space debris. That way we can use those well-honed reflexes of the future space cadets (take that how you want to) and maybe even raise some money for NASA with the fees.
(You can implement a targeting/size filter to keep from shooting at real satelites.)
Fisherman's Perspective (Score:2)
What NASA needs to do from that point depends on what they want with the junk. Just launching it out of orbit or toward the moon won't make the problem go away. Maybe there is a way to incinerate the collected garbage while in orbit. Just as long as flaming debris doesn't come back our way.
How about aerogel? (Score:3, Interesting)
Thick enough, it could be used to capture those tiny bolts and fragments they can't track by radar.
Also, one of their concerns about using lasers to zap bigger debris was the fear of generation bazillion smaller particles that couldn't be collected or tracked thereafter.
Why not create an autonomous robot that circles the globe, zap the objects it can while collecting the smaller debris in an AeroGel fish net?
Think it won't hold up to the task? Check out the photos [nasa.gov] of AeroGel. The fluffy thing can hold up a brick!
Out of work tech employees (Score:2, Funny)
Another idea: have organizations "Adopt-an-Orbit" and keep our skyways clean. Unfortunately all the brag signs they put up will cause the same problem....
Why is NASA so scared about rocks hitting their spacecraft? All they need to do is sit in the middle and shoot the biggest pieces, then shoot the small fragments one at a time. Never shoot another big one until you've cleaned up all the tiny pieces, and you'll be fine.
Ever see an old steam engine? Notice that big angular piece of metal just above the track in front? It's called a cowcatcher. The premise is, whatever is in your way (be it a cow or some girl tied to the tracks) will either be pushed to one side or split to either side. Depending on how tough your metal is, it'll deflect a lot of lesser junk too. That's the way to deal with it. Even the Enterprise had a deflector shield; you can't avoid or clean up every little piece of material in space.
And finally: who says all that junk isn't worth something? It's just a treasure waiting to be discovered! Put Martha Stewart in a spacesuit and provdide her with gold rickrack and glitter glue, and we'll be able to provide even the poorest third-world peasant with a stunning centerpiece on their dining room table.
Terminator Tether (Score:3, Informative)
See his Terminator Tether [tethers.com] page. It's a great way to bring down an orbiting mass without actually having to carry the mass of fuel that would be required for a deorbiting burn.
That wouldn't work... (Score:2)
Boy, what world do you live in? I'm not sure that a nasty look from a robot will do much to solve the space debris problem. Perhaps a robot with a garbage pick, plastic bag, and orange vest would be a better place to start...
Collect it as ballast for tether/space elevator (Score:5, Interesting)
Are giant Nets too low tech? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Are giant Nets too low tech? (Score:2)
Collecting debris (Score:2, Insightful)
The bags could have a simple mechanical one-way opening, to avoid inertia to make things scape. The main criteria of (automatic?) selection would be the size, since most of the junk in orbit is small, and the main problem is this - big things are more likely to be avoided by spaceships.
Alex.
An Alchemist's Solution (Score:4, Interesting)
First and foremost, any solution needs to consider the economic factor. A solution that pays for itself will be a hands down winner.
Second, it seems like many of the solutions here would create more debris than already exists. A single large satellite is far simpler to track and avoid than a few thousand pieces of that large satellite. Unless your lasers or other weapons completely convert the debris into energy, you're wasting your time. Even if they force the debris toward Earth, the question would remain of "how did they do it"? The answer is by vaporizing matter which blasted away in the opposite direction. That matter is now not only debris in space, but untrackable debris. Even a paint fleck can do (and has done) serious damage to another orbiting object.
Third, THIS SPACE JUNK HAS VALUE!!! If its matter, and its in orbit, it is worth thousands of dollars a pound. It blows my mind everytime they guide something down that took millions too get up there instead of coming up with a way to get stuff into a parking orbit. Eventually, probably even today, there should be enough materials in space to justify manufacturing in space instead of sending more stuff up.
Steps we should take to turn this lead into gold include a) all future items launched should have provisions to reach an orbiting factory/storage facility at the end of their expected life. b) they need to all have provisions for capture via forces instead of mechanical means. This might mean adding magnetic materials or something. This way, an orbiting vehicle could capture them without contact that could cause further scattering of debris. c) software needs to be developed that can calculate capture plans for multiple objects that utilize the energy (stored in the momentum) of the objects captured effectively to help reach the next object and eventually get back to the orbiting factory/storage facility. Sort of like a game of 3D billiards. d) automated recycling and manufacturing technologies need to be developed to turn these raw materials into useful things like airtight habitat shells. At least initially, we'd probably have to keep bringing the high tech chips and stuff up the hard way, but the heavy shells and stuff could likely be very effectively manufactured in space. Things like girders for the space station should be relatively easy to do.
Re:An Alchemist's Solution (Score:2)
Chyeah, right! Let's start with the fact that no one's done any serious development of zero-G menufacturing. (Sure, there's been a few research studies, but right now it's just a lab curio.) Pair that with the fact that any such space manufacturer would necessarily be contracting out, sharing a lot of clients, and totally exposed to all who wish to see the satellite being manufactured (trade secret or national secret violations, anyone?), while (in theory, at least) ground manufacture can be a "private" collaboration hidden from prying eyes until the bird is sealed up and launched.
Which is not to say it will never become a good idea. Just to say that the market will seriously have to change - say, by getting a lot of people living in space for other reasons - before orbital manufacturing of satellites intended to help Earth can become viable...so, right now, it's a non-starter.
Re:An Alchemist's Solution (Score:2)
I always figured the Hubble's main lens would make a great start for a 0-g foundry.
You know, focusing the sun's light onto unrefined ore to melt it.
The solution is nets. (Score:2)
Nanosatellites (Score:3, Interesting)
BBCnews reported [bbc.co.uk] some time ago on such a posible role for Surrey Satellite Technology's nanosatellite [sstl.co.uk] SNAP program [sstl.co.uk]. A swarm of cheap (at about 100,000 UK sterling) manuverable tiny satellites that can latch onto and gradually deorbit junk.
How though could such carry enough reaction mass to actually slow something down enough? Info on its propulsion system is here (pdf) [sstl.co.uk]. Could you just do it via its flywheel? Or use such to cluster together junk for collection by something bigger?I could certainly see a role as a beacon to actively tag stuff (on the net even! [bbc.co.uk])rather than relying upon constant ground based monitoring.
Two Words.... (Score:2, Funny)
Oh, the images...! (Score:2)
The first thing that came to mind was this image of the shuttle towing the biggest horseshoe magnet imaginable through the orbital plane. Besides all the bits of space junk, it had also attracted (and grabbed) a conical spacecraft as seen in the old Gerry & Sylvia Anderson series "UFO" (does anyone besides me still remember that?)
The next thing that came to mind was a whole bunch of spacewalking astronauts, all armed with enormous titanium-mesh butterfly nets and maneuvering jet backpacks.
I think I'd better go take my meds...
We have the technology... (Score:4, Insightful)
- into decaying orbits or
- a designated "trash ring" or
- push it to escape velocity
depending on specifics of each piece of junkFunny as it sounds, this could work. A proactive strategy would be based on using single hits over multiple targeting windows to push each piece of junk into decaying orbits or to shepherd junk into a trash ring where our grandkids could mine it (what will be the multiplier for the value of a chunk of scrap metal that is already at orbital velocity?). Beebees that miss would add an insignificant amount of water vapor to the upper atmosphere or leave near Earth space. Each shot would cost no more than the cost of the beebee-- the power is free. Someone could figure out the ratio of the size of the solar array to the number of shots that can be fired in month's time. My wag is that with collectors comparable with today's, the thing could manage a few shots a week.
A program like this would need a good name. I suggest "Space Balls"
How about a large Gauss Gun? (Score:2)
reality check (Score:3, Interesting)
The article is a bit heavy on the space-junk media hype. The practical answer is to let nature take its course and work toward prevention.
Any method of attempting to destroy debris isn't going to be practical. Giant debris collectors deliberately placed in dangerous orbits are likely to simply be smashed to pieces rather than gather any meaningful quantity of debris. Laser systems could vaporize metal fragments, but this vapor will simply congeal into globlets and cool into the space equivalent of bird shot. Until we develop gravity disruption fields, there is no effective way to affect the orbits of debris. The best bet is to wait the problem out. LEO is unstable. The Earth's atmosphere bulges significantly during solar maximums, and this drag has the effect of cleaning out the spacelanes within a reasonable period of time. In time, the problem (at least at LEO) will take care of itself if we can stop adding to it.
I'm pretty sure the following is being done, but there should be restrictions on any mass accelerated to orbital speeds. Specifically:
Or, we could just use the Q solution. Simply change the gravitational constant of the universe.
Re:reality check (Score:2)
The practical answer is to let nature take its course and work toward prevention.
My fear, based on the human record of resource usage in the past, is that few preventative measures will be enforced enough to reduce space debris. I suspect that there will be enough countries and organizations flaunting such rules that debris will continue to increase until it becomes a real problem.
And once it becomes a serious enough problem, it becomes self-maintaining: collisions with debris creates even more debris.
At this point, no amount of preventative measures help. You have to start actively cleaning things up. I suspect this won't happen until the lost revenue in damaged satellites starts to match the cleanup costs.
As for changing the gravitational constant of the universe, I've never quite understood how Q could have suggested that. I mean, talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The mass destruction that would ensue is beyond all possible imagination.
Easy Answer (Score:2)
When it comes across an object within certain size constraints, it calculates it's orbital data and sends it down to NORAD, which matches the data up with their database of known space debris. If there's a match, the robot picks it up.
silicon foam (Score:3, Interesting)
Good Idea (Score:2)
Would glaring work too? (Score:2)
The next Ask Slashdot... (Score:2)
Posted by Kredal [slashdot.org] on Friday July 12, @01:45PM
from the c64s-in-the-middle-east dept.
g-w-bush [mailto] asks: "I've been asked to come up with a plan to take out the bad men living in caves, and making sure they can't get to the internet. Does anyone know how I can best take care of this? I'd love to be able to tell those Generals that I'm actually smart, but I need your help. Email your suggestions to me [mailto]"
A little orbital mechanics (Score:2, Interesting)
Sweeping out a single orbit would be like driving through a staight city street at high speed with a bulldozer and then thinking you did not have to stop at stop lights on that road because you cleared everything out of that path two hours ago.
Objects start mostly going in the same direction, but the tidal forces of the moon distort the orbit and twist it until it is following some other path. (of course we also have the polar orbits the military use)
Most of these objects quickly hit the atmosphere, Many stay up for years and a few probably get ejected out of earth orbit.
It is the intersections you have to watch out for