backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 30 comment(s) - last by Integral9.. on Sep 11 at 8:11 AM


Shuttle Atlantis makes its way to Launch Pad 39A  (Source: Reuters)
The shuttle Atlantis mission next month faces a higher level of danger from floating space junk

NASA officials admitted that next month's shuttle Atlantis shuttle mission to fix the Hubble Space Telescope faces increased danger from possible junk floating in space.  The higher the elevation, the more likely it is for a space shuttle to encounter space debris from abandoned satellites and rockets. 

The ISS is orbiting 220 miles above the surface of the Earth, while Hubble is more than 350 miles away from Earth.

Furthermore, since most shuttles are sent to the International Space Station (ISS), shuttles are somewhat protected from space debris and other small objects that could impact the exterior of the shuttle.  But there will be no such luxury when Atlantis is sent to the Hubble.  According to program manager John Shannon, one out of every 300 space shuttle missions can expect to be ended due to space debris.  The odds are lower for shuttle Atlantis, which has a 1-in-185 risk of being destroyed by space debris during its mission.

Shuttle Atlantis is scheduled to launch October 10 from Cape Canaveral, Florida.  The launch marks the final repair mission for the 18-year-old telescope, which is facing retirement in the very near future.

Astronauts on the ISS were forced to fire boosters on the European Space Agency's Automated Transfer Vehicle, which helped lower the orbit of the ISS by one mile.  The incident marked the first time in five years in which astronauts had to fire boosters to avoid possible space debris.

Even a small metal shard can cause severe damage to the space shuttle because it is hurtling through space at thousands of miles per hour, astronomers noted.  Space has become increasingly cluttered with remnants of satellite and rocket mishaps from American, Russian and Chinese space missions.  The two latest problems include last year's controversial satellite destruction test by a Chinese missile and the self-destructed Russian spy satellite earlier this year.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Space Junk
By ViroMan on 9/10/2008 8:27:23 AM , Rating: 3
Sounds like its about time for someone to start a space salvage agency. I'm sure there are tons of national secrets floating up there that no one can claim rights to. After all... space belongs to no one or anything other then the universe itself... unless you believe in god.




RE: Space Junk
By rollakid on 9/10/2008 9:09:26 AM , Rating: 3
Send MacGyver up there, we might just saved millions of dollars; Give him 3 months we might even have a space fortress.


RE: Space Junk
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 9:17:34 AM , Rating: 2
Made of rubber bands, pencils, and paper clips.


RE: Space Junk
By Ticholo on 9/10/2008 11:06:11 AM , Rating: 2
That's what they call "space concrete".


RE: Space Junk
By V3ctorPT on 9/10/2008 2:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
Microwaves, toasters, MS Zune, pamela anderson's 1st. implants...


RE: Space Junk
By JediJeb on 9/10/2008 3:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone remember the short lived show from the late 70's early 80's called "Quark" that was about a space garbage collector. Looks like they were on the mark, just a little before their time with that one.


RE: Space Junk
By Samus on 9/10/2008 7:43:14 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with collecting the junk is it has to be done manually. You can't depend on a magnetic collection mechanism because of the poor magnetic field and the safe bet most of the junk isn't metalic. Most of this stuff is probably composite, such as modern satellite housing amd solar panels.

Frankly I don't know how they're going to clean it up :(


RE: Space Junk
By JonnyDough on 9/11/2008 12:32:03 AM , Rating: 3
Look, all I asked for were some freakin' space sharks with freakin' laser beams attached to their freakin' heads. I mean honestly, what am I paying you people for?


RE: Space Junk
By GreenyMP on 9/10/2008 9:26:17 AM , Rating: 2
Or we should mount that anti-missile laser on the front of the space shuttle and vaporize the space junk a little each time we go up.

I would just make sure that if there was a mirror floating through space with three people dressed in black robes trapped in it -- not to shoot.


RE: Space Junk
By MrBeans on 9/10/2008 9:58:07 AM , Rating: 2
It'd be scary if we launch a shuttle and it collides with one of those old no longer functioning satellites.


RE: Space Junk
By Ticholo on 9/10/2008 11:08:39 AM , Rating: 2
I think they can plan for those. Maybe we'll have a cloud of junk in orbit like in Wall-E in a few years. That would put a few dents in future space exploration.


RE: Space Junk
By JonnyDough on 9/11/2008 12:36:42 AM , Rating: 2
Right you are my friend.

As if space exploration is not complicated enough with all the radiation, crazy astronaut love triangles, and the dwindling NASA budget. Next you're going to tell me that there's an asian nation that wants to compete in the space race with us by setting foot on the moon.

Oh, there is? Huh!


RE: Space Junk
By Solandri on 9/10/2008 2:36:39 PM , Rating: 4
I've said this before - gelatinous cubes. Big foamed balls in orbit (you can make the cubes if you want to be cute). Small debris will hit the foam, which should be big enough to catch the debris before it passes all the way through. They'll collect the debris that's too small to track. Due to their large size, their orbit will decay due to atmospheric drag and eventually they (and the debris they caught) will burn up on re-entry.

A similar concept was used aboard Stardust to catch particles of a comet using aerogel collectors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardust_(spacecraft)...


RE: Space Junk
By djxtreme on 9/10/2008 8:02:25 PM , Rating: 1
What about some type of Magnetic satellite to attract the junk for easy salvage?


Been almost that close to the shuttle
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 9:21:45 AM , Rating: 1
Been a few hundred feet from it before. Pretty damn cool.

Anyway space travel has risks. NASA knows it. The astronauts know it. So lets shut up about them and let the people who do the work deal with it.

And a space cleanup mission would be impossible with today's technology. I do think space debris will be a steady growing problem. Countries need to start being more responsible in how they dispose of their worn out satellites. They need to let them burn up in the atmosphere. Not blow them up in space.




By Ticholo on 9/10/2008 11:15:25 AM , Rating: 2
Are most satellites nowadays still owned by countries?
Regardless, I agree with you on the responsible disposal.


By Murloc on 9/10/2008 12:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
you have more chances to get killed while building a house or driving.
We have to stop taxists, or they may be killed.


By SoCalBoomer on 9/10/2008 7:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
I thought any that were blown up in space were done so in order to break them up so that they would burn up on re-entry. And that the only ones that earn this distinction are those that are a: too large to burn up, b: too large to burn up and cannot be steered to land away from populated areas, or c: too large to burn up, can't be steered away from populated areas, and have toxic fuel on board.

Otherwise, these should all be dropped into the atmosphere, no?


Space Junk, Space Shuttles, Space Stations, et al
By MFranklin on 9/10/2008 1:44:40 PM , Rating: 2
Earth's low (and medium low) orbit lanes are full of junk. Everywhere. That one particular mission might be more hazardous than the next is just ludicrous. In fact, it almost sounds like a lame excuse NOT to spend the time, money and mechanics to repair the same Hubble Telescope that the Bush administration has been wanting to scrap anyway.

Oh... and as for being a robot...

"We are sorry for the inconvenience but we've determined you have a low DailyTech rating and may possibly be a robot."

I can assure you that I am no robot. If I were, I would have already been programmed to ignore this topic.

Savvy?

...




By Ringold on 9/10/2008 7:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the same Hubble Telescope that the Bush administration has been wanting to scrap anyway.


Do I hear an accusatory tone? Got to admit, it's a huge amount of trouble for an instrument that has questionable value. Won't the James Webb going up in 2013 far outclass it? Considering the mission all together to extend Hubble is probably going to have a pretty large price tag, I think the arguments for and against its repair mission are fairly apolitical. Plenty of scientists are happy to point to projects of their own that could be funded with that same money that have fascinating scientific goals of their own.

But I saw a dead dog along the road today. I guess that is Bush's fault too.


By randomly on 9/10/2008 8:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
James Webb telescope operates in the infrared. Hubble in the optical, ultraviolet, and near infrared. They operate in different spectrums. They are complimentary, the JWT will not replace the Hubble.

When the Hubble finally dies we will no longer have a space based telescope that can see in the visible spectrum. The Hubble has been a unique and incredibly useful tool, I think something like 25% of the astrophysical papers published have used Hubble data.

So no, the Hubble is not of questionable value.


Lower?
By theapparition on 9/10/2008 9:14:28 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
According to program manager John Shannon, one out of every 300 space shuttle missions can expect to be ended due to space debris. The odds are lower for shuttle Atlantis, which has a 1-in-185 risk of being destroyed by space debris during its mission.

1:300->1:185? I'd say the odds are higher. And "destroyed" is a rather harsh term. Sure you don't moonlight as a writer for CNN?




RE: Lower?
By foolsgambit11 on 9/10/2008 1:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, in one statistic it only causes the mission to be scrubbed, in the other, the shuttle becomes space debris. So I'd have to assume that the risks of only mission failure will be even higher than the 1:184. Or is that lower? (Sorry, couldn't resist)

Maybe statistics are like air conditioning. When you increase the coldness of the air conditioning, are you turning it down, or turning it up?


Exaggerated risk?
By EODetroit on 9/10/2008 9:37:08 AM , Rating: 2
Lets see... the Hubble itself operates at that altitude every minute of every day for the past 15-20 years or however long its been doing its thing. And it hasn't been destroyed.

If the risk were really 1 in 300 to the shuttle, it would be smaller to the Hubble, because the Hubble is smaller... but the shuttle is only going to be there for a few days... the Hubble has been there a lot longer.

So we can presume based on the fact that the Hubble hasn't been destroyed that the risk to the shuttle of being destroyed by orbital debris in fact no where close to 1 in 300. Gimme a break NASA, or at least some credit for having a semi-functional brain.




RE: Exaggerated risk?
By ZmaxDP on 9/10/2008 11:13:50 PM , Rating: 2
One big difference,

The hubble is in orbit already, and as such is moving at about the same rate as all the other junk in it's orbit. So, the delta between the junk and the hubble is minimal.

The shuttle is moving into that orbit, and unless NASA was planning on a mission several hundred days long (not likely given the shuttle's capabilities) it is going to have to move into that orbit before changing it's speed to match that of the hubble.

I would surmise that the risk is low while in orbit with the hubble, but reaching and exiting that orbit the risk is substantially higher.

Semi-functional may indeed be the key... (just having fun, you set yourself up for that one)


The odds
By Fracture on 9/10/2008 10:26:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
one out of every 300 space shuttle missions can expect to be ended due to space debris. The odds are lower for shuttle Atlantis, which has a 1-in-185 risk of being destroyed by space debris during its mission.


Not to get into semantics, but if something is more likely to happen (1/185 > 1/300) then the odds are actually higher . Almost all similar positive connotations mean the same, ie odds are better, odds are greater, odds are more favorable, etc.




Space Garbage Collector.
By megastore on 9/10/2008 2:24:22 PM , Rating: 2
Redundant Redundancy.
By JonnyDough on 9/11/2008 12:29:35 AM , Rating: 2
The redundant redundancy is making me nuts and is driving me nuts because it's very redundantly redundant.

quote:
"NASA officials admitted that next month's shuttle Atlantis shuttle mission...."




Shoot me...into space?!
By JonnyDough on 9/11/2008 12:41:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote>The two latest problems include last year's controversial satellite destruction test by a Chinese missile and the self-destructed Russian spy satellite earlier this year.

Why can't we outfit these satellites with small boosters to shoot them out into space? Let some planet 8,000,000,000 light yrs away deal with it.




Roger Wilco
By Integral9 on 9/11/2008 8:11:23 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like a job for Capt. Roger Rilco and the crew of the SCS Eureka.
-Space Quest 5-




"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki