European Plan To Tackle Space Debris? Hug it Out (theguardian.com) 22
The European Space Agency is working to tackle the issue of space debris with the technological version of a big hug. From a report: It hopes to be able to use tentacle-like mechanical arms to embrace a dead satellite and remove it from orbit. Other options considered include casting a net over the object, using a single robotic arm or firing a harpoon. At Esa's ministerial council last month, the agency allocated $450 million to space safety programmes, some of which will go towards a mission aimed at removing defunct satellites from orbit. The head of Esa's space debris office, Holger Krag, said work on developing the mission would start now with the aim of designing something that could be used again. "The goal is to make these removal actions happen more frequently, and therefore they need to be cheap," he said. "The technology that we will most likely use now is actually consisting of some sort of arms, like tentacles, that embrace the object because you can capture the object before you touch it."
Hug? (Score:3)
More like clingy. They should call it Ex-Girlfriend.
Re: (Score:2)
More like clingy. They should call it Ex-Girlfriend.
This is slashdot. A woman that would want to cling to any of these people is mythical.
Call it Mary Jane. Why? Something-something about a woman, hurr durr. We already know it wasn't a real woman.
If it was named after a real woman, we can be sure it was the woman he smothered, metaphorically and otherwise.
Journalists please take notice. (Score:4, Insightful)
Any article about space debris should mention the Kessler Syndrome [wikipedia.org] because it's important to explain to people why they should care. At least some of the people who read your article will not already be read in.
Re:Journalists please take notice. (Score:4, Informative)
Any article about space debris should mention the Kessler Syndrome because it's important to explain to people why they should care. At least some of the people who read your article will not already be read in.
Mentioning Kessler syndrome without numbers does nothing but turn people into Kessler Concern Trolls, who bring up the name without any grasp of its likelihood or its real effects, and completely ignores the fact that it's really freaking easy to avoid: just build tougher satellites. But even without that quite trivial mitigation, people stop listening after the second sentence, and certainly never see any numbers whatsoever. By the time you're explaining that vast quantities of satellites at any given altitude have coincident orbits, where their relative velocities are quite low, eyes have glazed over and no one is listening.
Is anyone going to actually study and look at the results of space debris flux modeling [colorado.edu] equations? Nope.
As with... well, literally everything, knowing the name of the problem and the one sentence description of the problem makes you worse than useless, not informed. You now think you're informed, when in fact your grasp of the subject is so poor you'd be better off not knowing its name at all. Your ability to make correct decisions based on what you know is completely nonexistent, yet you're completely unaware of it.
There's probably a name for that......
Re: (Score:2)
just build tougher satellites
At $2800/kg to LEO (the price has recently dropped) there are reasons why "tougher satellites" aren't built. Besides, solar panels don't work well with DU shielding.
Re: (Score:2)
Any article about space debris should mention the Kessler Syndrome because it's important to explain to people why they should care. At least some of the people who read your article will not already be read in.
Mentioning Kessler syndrome without numbers does nothing but turn people into Kessler Concern Trolls, who bring up the name without any grasp of its likelihood or its real effects, and completely ignores the fact that it's really freaking easy to avoid: just build tougher satellites. But even without that quite trivial mitigation, people stop listening after the second sentence, and certainly never see any numbers whatsoever. By the time you're explaining that vast quantities of satellites at any given altitude have coincident orbits, where their relative velocities are quite low, eyes have glazed over and no one is listening.
Is anyone going to actually study and look at the results of space debris flux modeling [colorado.edu] equations? Nope.
As with... well, literally everything, knowing the name of the problem and the one sentence description of the problem makes you worse than useless, not informed. You now think you're informed, when in fact your grasp of the subject is so poor you'd be better off not knowing its name at all. Your ability to make correct decisions based on what you know is completely nonexistent, yet you're completely unaware of it.
There's probably a name for that......
As the dude that originally responded to your post more or less said "build tougher satellites" is easier said than done.
As far as capture is concerned, why not an electromagnet? Most of the junk floating around is metal yes? Send up a couple "collector" satellites. Either have them fall back when the are "done".
Re: (Score:2)
knowing the name of the problem and the one sentence description of the problem makes you worse than useless, not informed.
Only if you are a total ass. If you let professionals handle problems that require professionals, you ask them how serious the problem is and what to do about it.
But, if you don't know about the problem at all, you elect asshats who cut the funding from the professionals because after all that sounds like a made-up thing that some sciency person is just telling you so they will get funding.
On the whole I think it is better for the public to know the gist of such matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, good, so you're saying there are no practical concerns, this is just a chicken-little type situation? That's what you meant, right?
Good step (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No need, the janitor-bot could simply throw the first piece of debris in a direction that takes it out of orbit while propelling the bot in the direction of the next piece of debris, and so on.
Re: (Score:3)
But you're capped at savings equal to the energy it would take to throw the satellite, which is small compared to reaching a new stable orbit.
The correct answer has to be the use of one of those new "space drive" style propulsion devices, otherwise fuel will defeat this concept.
If this doesn't work we'll have to go with something more practical, like a giant t-shirt gun in a high orbit shooting nets downward. Or a giant space laser.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily, most of the junk is in LEO, which is also where most of the at-risk satellites are. Minor maneuvering will create an intercept path within a few orbits, which in LEO can be an hour and a half. Once near the junk the parent spacecraft will drop whatever the deorbit mechanism is (tether, retrorocket, etc.) in the junk's path. They just need to make sure that the interception isn't violent enough to shatter the target, and since most of it is metal or electronics that's not that big an issu
I'm gonna start my own space debris programme! (Score:2)
"We're whalers on the moon / We carry a harpoon / But there ain't no whales, so we tell tall tales / And sing a whaling tune!"
Re: (Score:2)
Harpoon? (Score:2)
At least it would give those lunar whalers something to do besides sing, since there arent any whales on the moon.
Re: (Score:2)
If they choose harpoons i hope they will have more success than the Philae lander during the Rosetta mission. It was supposed to harpoon the comet but failed to do so. The rest of the mission was a success though.
Otherwise, the ESA has a much smaller budget than the ESA. I hope this project follows through. But i do not hold my breath.
Mechanical version (Score:2)
Ah yes, brilliant analogy. Just like how space debris collisions are the technological version of a high five, deploying solar arrays are the technological version of laying out at the beach, and rocket launches are the technological version of jumping while flapping your arms really hard.
... and docking is the technological version of sex, with astronauts being the sperm.
Re: (Score:2)
Your comprehension flies just like a technological version of being stuck on an airplane in the seat in front of the asshole complaining about the understandable cries of a defenseless child.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You don't know they're defenseless until you check...
If this isn't modded up I will complain.
Re: (Score:2)