Aussie Lasers To Stop Satellite Collisions, Death 84
bennyboy64 writes "An Australian company is developing a laser tracking system that will help prevent collisions between satellites and space debris, ZDNet reports. 'The trouble is it's [debris] in orbit and travelling at orbital speeds, which means that it is travelling at about 30,000 kilometres an hour," said the CEO of the Australian company. 'If even a tiny little piece runs into a satellite it'll destroy it or punch a hole through a person if they're out there space walking.'"
Say What? (Score:5, Funny)
Asteroids! (Score:4, Funny)
Sounds like the old Asteroids game. If they're looking for volunteers, I'd be happy to put my years of experience to good use.
Re: (Score:2)
All I need is a bottle of Shasta and my all-Rush mix tape.
Oh wait. That was for Space Invaders. Carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that was for missile command.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
The Australians have a laser than can stop death? Now that is news I can use! Where can I get one?
The dark wavelength of the laser is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be... unnatural.
Is it possible to learn these powers?
Only from an Aussie...
Re: (Score:2)
Is it possible to learn these powers?
Only from an Aussie...
He'll just smile, and give you a vegemite sandwich.
Re: (Score:1)
And if you can attach them to cats, all the better.
Re: (Score:2)
Massive earthquakes? LAZARS!
Yes, i've seen that in a rather shocking real life documentary on SyFy, called MegaFault. They could stop an earthquake ripping open half the US (avoiding large cities, thank God) by firing lasers at it. Then some lave came up, then something froze, it got all too high-tech for me... But the same mastermind that designed KITT in the new Knight Rider was behind it, i am grateful we have such geniusses with us in this era.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They're attached to the heads of our sharks.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Where can I get one?
They're attached to the heads of our sharks.
No, it's worse than that the Australian implementation will use saltwater crocodiles, they wanted an amphibious weapon system!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They already have lasers that can often stop death. You'll find them in hospitals; lasers are used in all sorts of surgeries. My retina specialist used one on me that stopped blindness, [yahoo.com] although I later had to undergo traditional surgery (a vitrectomy) when the retina detached. I journaled about it here. [slashdot.org]
Sharks with frickin' laser beams! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Wow, sharks with frickin' laser beams are in space, saving humanity from impending doom!
I think the sharks with frickin' laser beams would be in space destroying these lasers, to accelerate humanity towards impending doom.
Re: (Score:1)
And thus begins the 'sharks with lasers' arms race...
Whoever can grow the largest mutant shark, and then attach the largest frickin' laser to it's head and then fling it into orbit with a trebuchet first wins!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not the sharks, we prefer to ride crocs with laser beams.
The world would thank you if you just used the laser to destroy all crocs [crocs.com].
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm sure you meant kangaroos with frickin' laser beams!
Re:Sharks with frickin' laser beams! (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sure you meant kangaroos with frickin' laser beams!
Kangaroos with LEDs would cut the country road toll. You just need some of those power generators which slide a magnet through a coil.
Like radar, but shorter wavelengths (Score:5, Informative)
Electro Optic Systems' laser technology, with the help of a federal government grant, will enable the Mount Stromlo observatory in Canberra to track space junk and sell the data it collects to satellite owners and companies like NASA.
Reading the summary I had hopes they had a laser rocket thing worked out: you heat the leading edge of a bit of space junk. Gas comes off that side and pushes the fragment backwards so it re-enters the atmosphere. But no. Its just a better way to detect the particles.
Re: (Score:2)
and sell the data it collects to satellite owners and companies like NASA.
NASA is a company?
Re:Like radar, but shorter wavelengths (Score:4, Informative)
More importantly, it's not a satellite owner.
NASA has lots of assets in low earth orbit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
More importantly, it's not a satellite owner. I guess the budget's only for hookers and blow.
NASA has lots of assets in low earth orbit.
Woah, NASA has hookers and blow in low earth orbit? Damn it someone send up the black-jack tables STAT and we'll have ourselves a profitable endeavor...
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, it's not a satellite owner. I guess the budget's only for hookers and blow.
NASA has lots of assets in low earth orbit.
Woah, NASA has hookers and blow in low earth orbit? Damn it someone send up the black-jack tables STAT and we'll have ourselves a profitable endeavor...
You had your chance when Pete Conrad was on Skylab.
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
> NASA has lots of assets in low earth orbit.
if a briquette is a small brick. what is an asset?
I guess it works better when spoken, not spelled. I have that though going through my mind when in meetings where people talk business-speak with "assets and resources".
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, it's not a satellite owner.
NASA has lots of assets in low earth orbit.
If so, why did you post "(satellite owners) and (companies like NASA)" ? And before I forget: whoosh.
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, it's not a satellite owner.
NASA has lots of assets in low earth orbit.
If so, why did you post "(satellite owners) and (companies like NASA)" ? And before I forget: whoosh.
I quoted "(satellite owners) and (companies like NASA)". I don't see a problem with "NASA has lots of assets in low earth orbit." Don't they?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
to track space junk and sell the data it collects to satellite owners and companies like NASA
*on phone* Hello, NASA? Hi, I'm ******** at the Mount Stromlo observatory in Canberra. We've just detected several objects on a collision course with the manned space station. We can provide you with a safe trajectory to avoid what will otherwise certainly be a catastrophic and fatal collision, but first, how much is that information worth to you?
Of course, it could be worse:
*on phone* Yo, NASA! Listen, this is Vinnie callin from Brooklyn. My associates at tha observahtory in Sicily tell me that there might
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Electro Optic Systems' laser technology, with the help of a federal government grant, will enable the Mount Stromlo observatory in Canberra to track space junk and sell the data it collects to satellite owners and companies like NASA.
But no. Its just a better way to detect the particles.
Huh? Not event that, mate, for the time being is manual. From TFA:
"It's still a manually operated system, so this grant will transition us to commercial operation and automate that whole system so it can actually run unattended," Smith said.
Yeah, sure I imagine that there is actually some automation in place, but... if left only to imagination... is also funny to imagine a person using a laser pointer to search/detect junk in space (TFA doesn't say a word how they a conducting the search/tracking using the laser!)
Re: (Score:2)
Just point the beam in a single direction and look for reflections. Once you start picking up the same particles over and oevr just redirect the beam slightly. Either way you collect a stream of data.
Re: (Score:2)
Just point the beam in a single direction and look for reflections. Once you start picking up the same particles over and oevr just redirect the beam slightly. Either way you collect a stream of data.
Unless you fan out the laser beam (and loose intensity), I reckon the probability to capture something is lower than winning the Tats Lotto - which wouldn't make a good business case. Should be something more sophisticated than what you suggest.
Re: (Score:2)
I considered using a rotating mirror to scan the sky. The question is whether your system can work fast enough to actually capture more particles that way?
Re:Like radar, but shorter wavelengths (Score:4, Interesting)
The question is whether your system can work fast enough to actually capture more particles that way?
This is where the analogy with the TatsLotto serves. Either way: play always you favourite numbers (keep thye beam in the same position) or change them from one game to the other (sweep the sky), the probability to win is the same if you play a single ticket (using a narrow beam).
Granted, if you know a region where is more probable to find what you are looking for, the analogy with Lotto stops. But also exploring only in a certain region will make you prone to miss other debris that may knock down a satellite of your customers.
I reckon that using a slightly divergent beam (even better, a divergence controlled one) would improve the chances better than narrow-beam sky-sweeping method (not that the two methods are exclusive).
Re:Like radar, but shorter wavelengths (Score:4, Insightful)
There are, for instance, a number of influential entities with rather expensive satellites continually exposing fancy CCDs through even fancier optics. A laser powerful enough to blow vapor off of space junk, focused through the sort of optics used in ground surveillance satellites, shining on a piece of silicon specifically designed to be light sensitive. Yeah, that'd make the National Reconnaissance Office really happy...
Re: (Score:2)
Field of extraterrestrial defense? (Score:2)
On an off note, how much space debris would be needed to protect ourselves from potential alien invasions? (or at least convince aliens that our society is too backwards to consider conquering)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably more than it would take for the environmentally-fanatic aliens to become enraged and drop a blob of red matter into our planet's core...
Re: (Score:2)
If they arrive on some delicate, bubble-like world ship that is planning on entering earth orbit? Not actually all that much.
If they've invented a classic sci-fi "energy shield"? Probably enough to preclude nearly all human satellite activity.
If "they" are actually just a drifting cloud of space-hard spores or berserker nanites? Nothing short of a solid shell will be of the slightest use.
Re: (Score:2)
Protection? Gonna have to go with obscurity.
If aliens can move about the galaxy freely, the ships would have to be large to hold a sustained, reproducing population. That means they can move lots of mass. Hello, asteroid bombardment.
If they can move at greater speeds, then they can do the same with whatever solids they find floating about. Hello, relativistic bombardment.
Scroll down a bit to the excerpt from The Killing Star. http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x2.html#rbomb [projectrho.com]
'course, that's just anni
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the aliens --- Hal Clement's 1952 short story ``Halo'' touches on this w/ an interesting twist.
William
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think any aliens will find us. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Now, here is something I'd like to see... someone being able to make a way to deorbit space debris in a way so other objects are not at risk at that orbit level.
punch a hole through a person? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:punch a hole through a person? (Score:5, Informative)
Are they just making shit up or what? 30,000 mph is relative to the ground. Anything orbiting with be near that speed, including the space men. Someone tell me I'm wrong, and please tell me why. It seems to me the relative velocities would be small.
The particles you collide with could be in the same orbit but going the other way, though this is unlikely. More likely they could be in a different orbital plane so they sideswipe you at significant speed, or in an orbit with a different eccentricity so they have a decent relative velocity. Many particles cross each others paths with the speed of a fast bullet.
Not always orbiting in the same direction (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, 30,000 mph is relative to the ground. The velocity of a piece of space junk relative to an astronaut could well be 60,000 mph if it's going the other way round. Even if both junk and astronaut are orbiting west-to-east, they could be on divergent ellipses. So collision speeds could go anywhere from 0 to 60,000 mph. Heck, I'm pretty sure that a collision at a velocity difference of "just" 1,000 mph would hurt.
Cheers,
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Orbital velocity is about 17,000 MPH, so the 30,000 number already accounts for the particle going in the opposite direction, more or less.
Re:punch a hole through a person? (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me the relative velocities would be small.
If the trajectories are sort-of aligned, which doesn't need to be. I think you can imagine two bodies orbiting in opposite senses or on polar/equatorial orbits: the problem of resolving the relative velocity is left as a homework.
Can't we just accrete the stuff (Score:1)
and form "Islands in the Sky [slashdot.org]"?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are certainly a few large bits and pieces that could probably be of great use to, say, hypothetical Mars explorers(the ISS, maybe a few of the larger junk satellites or upper rocket stages); but the overwhelming majority of the stuff is tiny little bits and pieces, zipping around at horrid velocities in a variety of orbits across a vast volume of space. By comparison the (fairly tenuous and soupy) Pacific garbage patch is practically
Not at All (Score:5, Insightful)
"track space junk and sell the data it collects to satellite owners and companies like NASA"
So, basically, it doesn't *do* anything. They use it like...oh, a telescope or something, and then *sell* their observations.
Yippee. Shouldn't a project funded by federal grants not be eligible to sell their findings but be required to provide them freely to the public? Seems a little wrong to me.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"track space junk and sell the data it collects to satellite owners and companies like NASA"
So, basically, it doesn't *do* anything. They use it like...oh, a telescope or something, and then *sell* their observations.
Yippee. Shouldn't a project funded by federal grants not be eligible to sell their findings but be required to provide them freely to the public? Seems a little wrong to me.
CSIRO patents their discoveries and sells licenses to use them. This doesn't seem very different to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't a project funded by federal grants not be eligible to sell their findings but be required to provide them freely to the public? Seems a little wrong to me.
Why can't the Australian government make an investment?
Besides, should things developed with Australian taxpayer money be free to anyone to use? What about things developed with UK funds? Or US funds? I wouldn't at all be surprised if they did provide this information for free if an Australian satellite was about to be hit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yippee. Shouldn't a project funded by federal grants not be eligible to sell their findings but be required to provide them freely to the public? Seems a little wrong to me.
The 'federal' in the article refers to the Australian federal government not the US one. Just like the US undoubtedly charges us (Australia) for the information from its satellites (we don't have many of our own :() our government should charge you guys for the stuff we pick up with this.
Re: (Score:2)
let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Then what? Duck tape?
Re: (Score:1)
Also I think you've got it wrong. The article gives me the impression that they are not going to blast the particles, merely locate them.
With the data of where the particles are and so on, it wouldn't be so hard to map out collision courses and hence determine how to move your satellite/astronaut out of the way.
From the article: Unfortunately, the lasers won't blast junk out of the sky. "At the moment it doesn't get rid of it," Smith said. "What it does allow is for us to tra
Re: (Score:2)
I think he meant Duck Tape [octanecreative.com].
Re: (Score:2)
As for duct/duck/duc/duk tape, would you prefer low chloride HP tape?
PlanetES (Score:2)
Sounds like a Planet ES story to me.
in which case, by all means, put an end to space junk before we need to go out there to collect it ourselves at those speeds.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I do it for the morons that have to search the torrents for it as a separate set of words. I have the actual DVD collection, and while I know I paid for it, most likely won't and so they'll need a decent rip, so giving it out by name works better than having them hunt it down. I don't provide anything but words.
Note for the Hubble-like teams (Score:1)
Truly fascinating news. (Score:1, Offtopic)
I had no idea ZDNet still existed.
tracking is not the problem....computing power is (Score:1)
The real bottleneck is in the computer power to:
1) sort out which detections concern the same object;
2)calculate all the potential risk situations for these thousands of objects
orbital speeds... (Score:2)
'The trouble is it's [debris] in orbit and travelling at orbital speeds, which means that it is travelling at about 30,000 kilometres an hour," said the CEO of the Australian company. 'If even a tiny little piece runs into a satellite it'll destroy it or punch a hole through a person if they're out there space walking.'
Umm, maybe I'm not recalling middleschool science classes correctly - but when you're "space walking" you're ALSO moving at "orbital speeds"
So - how would the space debris punch a hole through a person if they were space walking? Sure, if it's traveling in a different direction it *might* - but still: the astronaut is moving at the same speed as the shuttle as the satellite they're deploying/fixing
Not quite (Score:2)
'The trouble is it's [debris] in orbit and travelling at orbital speeds, which means that it is travelling at about 30,000 kilometres an hour," said the CEO of the Australian company. 'If even a tiny little piece runs into a satellite it'll destroy it or punch a hole through a person if they're out there space walking.'
Umm, maybe I'm not recalling middleschool science classes correctly - but when you're "space walking" you're ALSO moving at "orbital speeds"
So - how would the space debris punch a hole through a person if they were space walking? Sure, if it's traveling in a different direction it *might* - but still: the astronaut is moving at the same speed as the shuttle as the satellite they're deploying/fixing
Debris can be moving in any random orbit. Consider the failed deployments, broken-off or detached bits and the initial force which set the debris into motion.
"Predict", Not "Prevent" (Score:2)
Very poor wording in that article / title there. Our Ozzian brethren aren't gonna prevent anything.
Silly Putty in Space! (Score:2)