Low Earth Orbit Junk Yard Nearly Full 443
vlado4 writes "The New York Times has up an article on the amount of space junk in Earth Orbit. According to NASA officials, the amount of stuff we've put into LEO is at critical levels. Additionally they have great graphics of the nearly 1000 new pieces resulting from testing the new Chinese anti-satellite weapon, as well as the damage to Hubble's solar array. The litter is now so bad that, even if space-faring nations refrained from further interference, collisions would continue to create more clutter just above our atmosphere. Space debris appear to be a difficult problem to deal with and may hinder future space exploration."
No problem (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No problem (Score:5, Funny)
RonB
Bad astronaut behavior (Score:3, Funny)
Weightless bitch-fighting.... hand me the beer and peanuts! Send 8 of 'em to space and they could make it into a survivor-style reality TV series.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
-nB
Difference between a landfill and a spacefill (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No problem (Score:5, Funny)
that will never work unless they can breed sharks that can survive in space..
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:No problem (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, in 1963 the US Military launched 480 million tiny needles into orbit (project West Ford), to see if they could be used to reflect radio signals.
That did not work well, but the needles remained in orbit for years.
And if scientists would not have been very opposed to it, they probably would have launched even more to see if the idea would work.
Also, it is difficult to say that space is "full" of junk. The LEO area has such a large volume that even hundres of millions of junk particles at a uniform distribution still means they are all many kilometers apart. So what is "full"?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Then there is the problem that speeds are very high. A particle in a different orbit than your Roomba will probably go right through it, instead of being properly processed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now increase the speed of the moped threehundred fold (and its energy almost a hundred thousand fold). Think that will work? No? Bingo. You wouldn't even change the orbit measurably if it flew past a just centimeter from your magnet.
You can take out debris by many methods, such as: applying direct thrust to it (say, attaching a small engine); subjecting it to more drag (say, attaching a sail to it to drag through the rarified atmosphere, o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree. I had envisioned an autonomous satellite that would synchronize its orbit with whatever junk is to be removed then apply a magnetic field so that the object would drop out of orbit. The benefit of this is that you wouldn't have to setup a collision to remove object
Re:No problem (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No problem (Score:5, Funny)
Also, we can schedule a date and time where everybody exhales simultaneously. That'll help.
Re:Collect it, yes. Throw it away, no. (Score:5, Informative)
1) We have no space tugs
2) Space tugs still cost money to operate (ion engines still use fuel, just less of it)
3) All craft break, even tugs, and in-space maintenence is ungodly expensive
4) Due to widely differing debris orbits and the need to match your target's orbit, it could take an ion engine years *per particle*.
5) The stuff is seen as junk for a reason.
6) There is no in-space forge, either researched or built or launched. Developing one would be a massive (unfunded) research project
7) There is no in-space casting facility. See above.
8) There is no in-space welding infrastructure. See above.
9) Any in-space manufacture would cost a fortune due to the extremely high labor and maintenence costs.
10) Any of the necessary components (tug, forge, casting, welding) could outright fail, making the entire system worthless.
All for what benefit -- eliminating one launch per several *thousand* pieces of debris captured? Great plan there. It's just not realistic, nor economical. Apparently non-"chowderheads" aren't aware of this.
Heh (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Heh (Score:5, Funny)
Look at the bright side (Score:5, Funny)
Sure, but it also prevents stuff from comig in. Things like alien landers, etc. Or in an earth hostility only mode, it is a cheaper, and more effective, vresion of the Star Wars defense. Put more up there and let it shield us.
Hafrumph!!! (Score:5, Funny)
{...ducks...}
Solution (Score:5, Funny)
Aerogel (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The Katamari Damacy Solution. I like it.
The solution? (Score:2)
How bad are we? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How bad are we? (Score:5, Funny)
What's next, a space station on cinder blocks?
RonB
Re:Not far off (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How bad are we? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How bad are we? (Score:5, Informative)
Not really. Decay time due to drag for LEO is fairly short. Debris in orbits below 300 km (where ISS lives) falls in less than 30 days. Debris up by the Hubble can stay up for years, but will fall eventually. Here is a chart of orbital decay vs. altitude.
This is correct. At low enough altitudes space debris does not cause a run-away debris scenario. This point was made in the New York Times article - if the Chinese had conducted their test at the ISS orbital altitude there would be no long term problem (just a medium term one for the ISS).
In fact drag automatically clears debris below about 700 km, eventually, but not above that altitude. There was a good article on this a year ago in Science: "Risks in Space from Orbiting Debris" by Liou and Johnson (20 January 2006: Vol. 311. no. 5759, pp. 340 - 341). They published a debris vs altitude chart for 2004, 2104, and 2204 showing that (assuming nothing else is launched into space), the existing debris cloud would be entirely cleared below 400 km in 100 years, and at least reduced below today's density between 400 and 700 km. Above that altitude the density keeps climbing century after century. By far the worst hazard is between 800 km and 1050 km.
This limits the hazard to a certain band of orbital altitudes, a fact not brought out in the news article. It isn't a denial of space by any means, but it is a significant restriction on usable orbits.
Petri Dish (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How bad are we? Oceans too! (Score:3, Informative)
And so are our oceans -- 2 millions tons of it according to an article I saw yesterday.
The Garbage Scow (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Garbage Scow "Toybox" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It will counter global warming (Score:5, Funny)
Hah--! (Score:3, Funny)
CERISE satellite (Score:4, Informative)
The NYT calls out the US but makes no mention of the the loss of the CERISE satellite [seds.org] by a fragment of an exploded Ariane upper stage in 1997.
We must boycot the NYT for this egregious slight! (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't "call out" the US. They happen to mention that as a small part of a larger story that really "calls out" the Chinese, if anyone. But we can't let any slight against the US, no matter how small or even entirely in your head it might be, go unchallenged. And of course, the best way to excuse anything is to point out that someone else is also doing it.
Rah! Rah! Rah! We're number one! USA! USA! USA!
But seriously... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right off the top of my head I can't think of a feasible way of beginning to clean this up. Perhaps large orbital superconducting magnets (easy to maintain cryo temperatures in space) for the ferrous stuff, but what about ceramics and all the other junk?
This has the potential to make what is usually the safest part of space travel (sitting there in orbit) the most dangerous part, unlike the historical danger zones of liftoff and reentry.
Leave it alone (Score:3, Insightful)
You leave it alone and it will go away. The drag forces on small objects in LEO will cause their orbits to decay in 3-5 years. Debris in higher orbits is another matter.
the thing about leo (Score:2)
so long term all this debris should come down and burn up.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But seriously... (Score:5, Interesting)
Comparable speed but not comparable velocity: if something in polar orbit hits something in equatorial orbit, grief will ensue.
Typical (Score:2, Insightful)
yes, humanity is shortsighted (Score:2, Insightful)
know anyone like that?
Re: (Score:2)
read the parent comment (Score:2)
i didn't reply to the top level post
read the parent (Score:2)
(slaps forehead)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet, here you are, still breathing. I guess you're waiting until you can take more out with you, or something? I know, it's getting more and more expensive to build underground lairs and doomsday devices and whatnot. But if you just step out in front of bus today, you can avoid all of those management and finance headaches, and still immediately cease being disgusted.
BTW, which nascent technology's 40-years-from-now problems are you accurately predicting today, and acting to co
Re:Typical (Score:4, Funny)
The sooner I get rid of you guys the better.
Killing yourself is never the answer, killing everyone else is a better and less selfish solution.
Re:Typical (Score:5, Funny)
Bah, it's hubris to think that mankind has put enough stuff in LEO to affect the entire orbital space.
Furthermore, what's to say that natural sources don't put more space junk in LEO than human processes?
And who cares if we've "filled up" LEO -- surely technological advances will enable us to deal with the complications as they arise.
And why should we (the US) have to bear the biggest burden of reducing the trash in LEO, when developing nations (those without a space program) get off scott free? It's not like we're the major contributor or anything.
Besides, the jury is still out... plenty of independent* scientists dispute the findings of this study, and we should take no action until there is consensus.
*Independent: funded by the "other side" of the interested parties
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
new moon (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I can hear the promo now... Don LaFontaine: "Katamari Damacy... This time, it's for real!"
Already Solved The Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
We've finally done it. (Score:4, Funny)
I guess we'll just have to go back to throwing our crap exclusively into the air and oceans. Last one to the beach with a six-pack is a rotten egg!
I have a radical idea (Score:5, Funny)
The problem will be solved in 3 months.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dear China, (Score:3, Funny)
You also might be interested to know that there has been a litany of terrestrial environmental mistakes made over the past century or so. While we recognize that it's you're right to fuck shit up on your own, we strongly suggest at least making an attempt to learn from mistakes already made.
In summary, we all remember our first beer too, but come on, it's time to grow up a bit.
Sincerely,
The World
saweet (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Lashing with tongue (Score:2)
Java to the Rescue! (Score:4, Funny)
no problem (Score:2)
you people are so silly
I'm of two minds. (Score:2)
On the other, it would provide good cover for the 'Falcon after she fools GWB's fleet admirals...
It's a global warming sun shield (Score:2)
Lower and raise the orbits (Score:2)
A giant vacuum... (Score:2, Funny)
Look to Hollywood for the answer! (Score:2)
Roomba (Score:2)
Catamari (Score:2)
ISS junk (Score:2)
See here [nytimes.com]
garbage collection? (Score:2)
Why not do it for real?
I propose gelatinous cubes (Score:2)
solution to non-existent global warming? (Score:2)
You KNOW this is going to get brought up by someone in the "global warming doesn't exist" club.
Seriously, when I heard about China blowing up that satelite, the first thing that came into my mind was all the debre floating around up there. Getting vehicles to the space station, or other, is already like throwing a ball through a swarm of killer bees and hope to not hit one.
LoB
Manifest Destiny (Score:2)
Well this will keep us where we belong -- and home, and not annoying the rest of the Universe. We've built our own fence.
A Solution (Score:2)
Launch really large balloons (100's m in diameter) into orbit. Use a material that goes rigid under solar UV so it doesn't matter if they get punctured after inflation.
Small debris - paint flecks etc. hit the balloon and vapoise themselves and some of the surface. Larger debris hits the balloon, punches through and out the other side, but in doing so loses some of its KE and drops into a slightly lower orbit, where atmospheric
What about gravity??? (Score:2)
I guess someone didn't pay attention in Physics class. Speeding junk will coalesce over time because gravity attracts objects together. Of course there will be high energy collision events in which pieces are shattered apart, but there will be low-energy collisions and near misses where the objects stick together. The latter type will eventu
Planetes (Score:2, Informative)
The story started as a discovery-type vessel got hit by a screw which led to a window exploding, killing everyone.
It's a pretty good reading imho, very informative for what's about to come in the space exploration adventure.
An idea who's time has come? (Score:4, Interesting)
mode parent up Re:An idea who's time has come? (Score:3, Informative)
This looks at the economics of how "space garbage collectors" might be managed.
"Planetes" is an outstanding anime - *very* well thought out for the medium-term future of space development. It has a richly envisioned, deeply layered world w/Power struggles (political, corporate), collapse of petroleum economy, widening divide between 1st & 3rd world economies. It is a Very well crafted series; a rich tapestry woven of thought provoking ideas.
The gui "interface" they designe
Time for... (Score:4, Funny)
Junk Science (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Ok, didn't Nasa Tell teh Astronaughts not to fl (Score:5, Funny)
Depending on the human, somewhere around around 32 inches.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How can you blame them? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, have you looked around the US? I personally live in a valley in Northern California that used to be a sort of paradise in which the locals (Pomo "Indians") used to regularly live over 100 years due to their diet and lifestyle. Today the lake is horribly polluted with mercury and agricultural run off. The lake is called Clear Lake, and it was when white men first showed up here. Today it is about the same color as pea soup and frankly you can't see much further through it most days.
This is pretty much the story of the US. Some people were living in harmony with nature, doing controlled burns on a regular basis to provide stewardship of the land. (In fact my lady and I were just looking at a seed catalog and found a plant that said "to germinate, burn several inches of pine needles above the seeds" etc etc.) Then some white guys showed up, killed and enslaved lots of them, and cut down their oaks (depriving them of a major staple) in order to plant crops or grow cattle. Then the government gets involved, and kills most of the rest of them. We have an island up here now known as Bloody Island because the army came through and massacred all but a small handful of members of one band. The island is up the road from where I work in a tribal casino. Next the government would take further action to make sure they couldn't maintain their old way of life; besides granting all their land to some other white people, they actually paid people to plant walnut trees. Walnuts are tasty but they provide nothing like the nutrition of oak acorns.
You are sadly deluding yourself if you think China is any different from the US. They're just behind. And they're catching up rapidly.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"During an eight year period ending in 2002, the solar panels on the Hubble Telescope were struck by space debris at least 725,000 times. Five thousand of these left crates and holes large enough to be seen by the naked eye."
Nope, not too high at all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)