Discussion Cleaning up the space junk?

[Keatah]

I just read http://www.space.com/11607-space-junk-rising-orbital-debris-levels-2030.html
.. and it talks about the growing problem of space junk, obviously. In 25 years many orbital slots will be unusable, yet, we are doing nothing today to alleviate the issue.

Ideas and thoughts on clean-up methods? I can't imagine economics being a friend here.

 

[Artlav]

Grow up and use nuclear engines to reduce cost, then launch a bunch of janitors.

 

[Capt_hensley]

If NASA and the rest of the world would fund and float my Gateway Station, in 10 years you could start servicing satellites that can still be used, and start de-orbiting the ones that need to go away. It could take 40-50 years to manage all the major cleanup, but at least it could be done. But alas, it all comes at a cost, real money, that nobody wants to put-up.

I know lets send Magneto up to do the job!:idea:

 

[Grover]

well, youve gotta clean up alot of space, who knows how many pieces there are? it would take far too long to clean it up to think of it as a single project, but rather think of it as a responsibility for all space-faring companies to bring back that they take up, giving true meaning to "what goes up, must come down"

 

[N_Molson]

Maybe an orbital laser cannon ?

 

[garyw]

Solar sails are being actively investigated as a method for inceasing orbital drag. The idea is that once you declare a satellite dead you instruct it to deploy a solar sail and point it such that it speads up the orbital decay.

 

[agentgonzo]

Solar sails are being actively investigated as a method for inceasing orbital drag. The idea is that once you declare a satellite dead you instruct it to deploy a solar sail and point it such that it speads up the orbital decay.

Is that actually using the light pressure and solar wind to slow down the orbit on the half of the orbit in the direction towards the sun (and then presumably rotate it edge-on so as not to get the corresponding speed boost on the other side of the orbit) or just increasing the drag of the upper atmosphere with a massive parachute?

 

[jangofett287]

There's always the space broomstick idea. you get a big, but highly accurate laser, and use it to ablate one side of a piece of debris, causing thrust, allowing you to change its orbit. anything really little just melts. anything really big can be boosted into a higher orbit. everything else is dumped into the atmosphere.

 

[orb]

Is that actually using the light pressure and solar wind to slow down the orbit on the half of the orbit in the direction towards the sun (and then presumably rotate it edge-on so as not to get the corresponding speed boost on the other side of the orbit) or just increasing the drag of the upper atmosphere with a massive parachute?

Drag of the upper atmosphere - NASA's NanoSail-D (and O-F thread).

 

[Capt_hensley]

There's always the space broomstick idea. you get a big, but highly accurate laser, and use it to ablate one side of a piece of debris, causing thrust, allowing you to change its orbit. anything really little just melts. anything really big can be boosted into a higher orbit. everything else is dumped into the atmosphere.

Probably not practical, since you are creating smaller uncontrolled objects from what once was only one piece. Sure you reduce the overall mass in orbit, but even the smallest things can have huge consequences upon impact.

Matter is matter, even on a molecular or nuclear scale, if we don't de-orbit it, it will be space debris.

To put this task into proper perspective

Don't put it up and ignore it(Current policy)
Bring back what you don't want in orbit ASAP, not years from now(Ideal Policy)
Use a micro-net to sweep all debris(Most Practical-improbable policy)
Wish it away(Impossible policy)(current policy)

Interesting discussion.:tiphat:

---------- Post added at 04:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 PM ----------

well, youve gotta clean up alot of space, who knows how many pieces there are? it would take far too long to clean it up to think of it as a single project, but rather think of it as a responsibility for all space-faring companies to bring back that they take up, giving true meaning to "what goes up, must come down"

Each good plan begins with a single step.

No, not one project, but at least it's a good start for the next 50 years, until a better solution presents itself. And it's what we CAN DO for now.

Great reply.

At least NASA took responsibility with HST and ISS, they plan to de-orbit them. Too bad it took 50 years to adopt the best plan to use.

 

[Donamy]

http://www.madman.com.au/news/japan-net-for-space-junk/

 

[Hielor]

Solar sails are being actively investigated as a method for inceasing orbital drag. The idea is that once you declare a satellite dead you instruct it to deploy a solar sail and point it such that it speads up the orbital decay.

The problem with this plan is that it doesn't take care of non-satellite debris like spent stages or satellites that die and lose the ability to be controlled...

 

[Keatah]

I like the solar sail and laser ideas. The solar sail is nice because it doesn't add a lot of weight to something. And it works like a poor-man's ion thruster. Low thrust over long periods of time during part of the orbit. Well that depends on the Earth's shadow. and the laser would work, I guess, because you can hit a target at an angle. The target won't necessarily be boosted to a higher orbit at all! I'm assuming the generated/ablated micro-debris would behave like dust and eventually fall victim to other natural forces like sunlight pressure or magnetic fields or upper atmo-drag. Whatever.

What I don't like is the idea of a big shield or barrier of foam and aerogel. This has too much potential to create more debris. It can be expensive, it can create more debris. it is really limited in the area where it is effective. And with conservation of energy laws, blahh blahh. Once it absorbs enough debris, it now has momentum that needs to be controlled. It is really no better than putting retro-rockets on an existing satellite.

And one thing about HST, and I hear this through 9th-hand resources, is that Hubble is a Keyhole satellite and the NSA does not want it left up there; for fear that another enemy satellite would get close to it and start taking pictures of secret tech. So that's the reasoning behind the de-orbit, contrary to what the public is being told.

And one more thing, about money.. Money is no more than a means for smarter people to control dumber people. Once our species gets rid of that notion(and the accompanying politics) then perhaps true space exploration can get underway.

---------- Post added at 01:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:53 PM ----------

The problem with this plan is that it doesn't take care of non-satellite debris like spent stages or satellites that die and lose the ability to be controlled...

Well yes, it won't do any good for existing stuff.
But, for each object you send up you attach a solar sail module, boosters included. If you mass produce the modules you can get them cheap enough. And over time they will improve and the weight cost would be on the order of a few kilograms. Each solar-sail de-orbit module could have its own independent timer and battery and activation electronics package. So it will work on a dead satellite. I can envision these little de-orbit packages to be no more the size of a potted plant! We have the materials and technology today, right now.

 

[T.Neo]

The problem with the "laser broom" is it's also a big weapon; you can aim it at enemy (or "enemy") spacecraft and damage them. That is problematic, politically.

Hubble a Keyhole satellite!? I've heard they're similar, but come on... Hubble has a lot of... specific... tech... in it... a lot of the data about that tech has been released... I'm sure it isn't some super-secret spy satellite.

As for larger debris- dead satellites and old rocket stages- a nuclear electric tug that can go around and attach deobit packages to them is possible, but does face some problems. Obviously it won't work for smaller debris and fragments though.

The best chance for those is to wait for solar activity to increase the density of the upper atmosphere and deorbit them naturally... or maybe use thousands of large gas-filled balloons to deorbit them, though these of course also have the potential to create further debris via spallation.

 

[jangofett287]

The problem with the "laser broom" is it's also a big weapon; you can aim it at enemy (or "enemy") spacecraft and damage them. That is problematic, politically.

That's why you place the laser under the control of a neutral country, like Switzerland.

 

[T.Neo]

And when the laser accidentally hits a manned spacecraft or an expensive satellite?

 

[Quintuss]

That's why you place the laser under the control of a neutral country, like Switzerland.

I guess that any neutral country wouldnt agree to have a giant laser under their care. Or they would just stop being neutral at all. And as for Switzerland, its like trusting a Ferengi...

 

[Keatah]

Hubble a Keyhole satellite!? I've heard they're similar, but come on... Hubble has a lot of... specific... tech... in it... a lot of the data about that tech has been released... I'm sure it isn't some super-secret spy satellite.

No, let me phrase it this way, Hubble *IS* a Keyhole satellite. It is equipped with a different suite of sensory and imagery devices; designed for astronomical usage. Nasa and stsci never have and never had intentions of using HST to spy on ground targets. Rumor is that if they tried, the amount of light from the surface would overwhelm the CCD's and other sensors anyways.

HST isn't playing the role of a reconnaissance satellite. While the layout and body and design are Keyhole, the sensor package is not.

 

[T.Neo]

I never said NASA was using Hubble as a spy sat, I meant (primarily) that it doesn't carry spy sat sensor equipment (which is pretty much what you just said)...

Nevertheless, we've seen plenty of high-res images of Hubble's exterior, and I'm sure there's also a good deal of technical data on it out there as well.

While I can certainly see vague similarities between Hubble and a keyhole satellite configuration, if NASA used Keyhole for Hubble and want to keep it secret, they've failed badly. Hubble has been displayed in a way that likely no "top secret" system ever has been.

I guess that any neutral country wouldnt agree to have a giant laser under their care. Or they would just stop being neutral at all.

A more pressing question might be: Who is really neutral?

 

[agentgonzo]

Drag of the upper atmosphere - NASA's NanoSail-D (and O-F thread).

So not a solar sail really then. Just a sail. Thanks for the info.