DailyTech - Space Nations Unsure How to Handle Space Junk

Submit News

Science Space Nations Unsure How to Handle Space Junk
Michael Barkoviak - February 18, 2009 4:27 PM

43 comment(s) - last by Spookster.. on Feb 19 at 8:03 PM

Space experts try to discuss what to do about space junk

Space junk isn't anything new, but a growing number of space nations are becoming concerned by the amount of junk that is now floating around the Earth.

The European Space Agency (ESA) is the latest organization to become interested in space junk, after creating a new program aimed at monitoring space debris. The $64 million project is designed to protect the estimated 13,000 satellites and other objects floating around the Earth.

The U.S. military actively monitors at least 19,000 objects in space -- ranging from working satellites to little pieces of space litter -- though there are still thousands of objects that could pose major risks to manned shuttles.

As the amount of space junk increases, experts are worried some debris could impact the International Space Station (ISS) or satellites in orbit, along with potentially hitting space shuttles launched towards the ISS.

"Space is pretty big, but after a while it can get crowded, especially in the region where these things are," according to David Wright, co-director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global Security Program.

All of this concern took center stage after an American satellite and a defunct Russian communications satellite ran into each other without anyone able to predict the incident would occur. The two satellites broke into hundreds of smaller pieces, and now pose potential risks to other satellites, space experts explained.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has received numerous alerts related to falling debris across Texas, though the U.S. Strategic Command doesn't believe the debris is related to the satellite crash last week.

The United Nations, ESA, NASA and other space nations are actively working to try and reduce the amount of space debris, but space experts warn it's only a matter of time before a major impact occurs during a human or robotic mission aboard the ISS, or somewhere else in space.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

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

Space Wall-E

By DtTall on 2/18/2009 4:52:30 PM , Rating: 5

We need to build robots and call them "Wall-E: Space Edition" and just have them clean up and blast stuff off into the Sun.

That or a big laser and just blast them into smaller junk until they are gone. Just like Asteroids.

RE: Space Wall-E

By quiksilvr on 2/18/2009 4:57:02 PM , Rating: 5

EVA!

Parent

RE: Space Wall-E

By Belard on 2/19/2009 5:53:36 AM , Rating: 2

EVA?

Those robots can do a lot of damage, but they don't fly much less work in space.

http://www.zgeek.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47646

Parent

RE: Space Wall-E

By Dreifort on 2/19/2009 11:11:05 AM , Rating: 2

I still like the nanites idea. Just when they finish with all the space junk, don't blame me when they attack Earth (or a space station, shuttle, etc)

http://cmluckwald.com/images/Portfolio/Replicator....

Parent

RE: Space Wall-E

By glitchc on 2/18/2009 4:59:29 PM , Rating: 3

If there's anything more dangerous than a defunct satellite floating through geostationary orbit, it is a high-velocity metal/silicon shard from a blasted version of said satellite. Those shards will slice through any space vehicle like a warm knife through butter.

Parent

RE: Space Wall-E

By inperfectdarkness on 2/18/2009 5:04:51 PM , Rating: 1

shards from a destroyed geostationary satellite would not "magically" develop a terminal velocity of 16,000 mph. it's the space junk that is orbiting at 18 times per day...that presents the largest risk.

Parent

RE: Space Wall-E

By rcc on 2/18/2009 5:06:06 PM , Rating: 2

A defunct satellite in geostationary orbit really isn't a problem. It's the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) debris that's a problem.

Parent

RE: Space Wall-E

By Shadowself on 2/19/2009 10:03:11 AM , Rating: 2

A defunct satellite in GSO most definitely is a problem. Defunct satellites in GSO move in a significant north south motion and have an east-west drift toward two "null points" in the GSO belt. This motion by dead satellites would make them a hazard to operational GSO satellites. This is why, by international agreement since the early 1990s, all GSO satellites have to be pushed up to a "graveyard orbit" approximately 100 km above GSO when they are at their end of life.

Parent

RE: Space Wall-E

By masher2

(blog) on 2/18/2009 5:06:22 PM , Rating: 2

At orbital velocities, the actual shape of the impacting object doesn't really matter. Still, turning a single object into thousands of small fragments spread out over a much larger area isn't a good idea. Unless you can deorbit it or vaporize it entirely, its probably best to just leave it alone.

Parent

RE: Space Wall-E

By MrPoletski on 2/19/2009 9:04:42 AM , Rating: 2

All that is really needed to deal with space debris is some mechanism that slows down every object within 5000 miles of earth or something (yeah I know this is fantastical) and it will all fall into our atmosphere and burn up harmlessly.

how to slow all these things down? I've got no idea, perhaps a giant gel blob orbiting the planet or something. eitherway, it is the goal of slowing these objects down that is the best solution IMHO.

there is no amount of armour that will protect you from an metal object travelling at 10k mph, that's for sure.

Parent

RE: Space Wall-E

By Shadowself on 2/19/2009 9:55:39 AM , Rating: 2

Actually the orbit altitude for objects to come in and burn up in under a year is about 350 km above the Earth's surface (assuming realistic ballistic coefficient of the object).

Also a "giant gel blob orbiting the planet" would just be up there orbiting too and be just another, larger piece of space junk. It would have virtually nothing to do with "slowing down" junk.

Parent

RE: Space Wall-E

By MrPoletski on 2/19/2009 4:40:13 AM , Rating: 3

quote:
If there's anything more dangerous than a defunct satellite floating through geostationary orbit,

Geostationary satellites are less dangerous than orbital ones because their debris will never reach each other at any speed.

"it is a high-velocity metal/silicon shard from a blasted version of said satellite. Those shards will slice through any space vehicle like a warm knife through butter."

Not if the space vehicle is also in geostationary orbit. Now an orbiting satellite that perhaps orbits the other way from the 'target' object poses the greatest threat because the realitve velocity of any debris from that satellite hitting the 'target' will be the sum of both their orbital speeds.

And yes, that might mean 10's of thousands of mph. A 10mm nut flying at that speed would go in one side of the ISS and come right out the other.

Parent

RE: Space Wall-E

By Shadowself on 2/19/2009 10:05:00 AM , Rating: 2

See my other comment on GSO satellites and graveyard orbits.

Parent

RE: Space Wall-E

By PogoThePrez on 2/18/2009 6:35:56 PM , Rating: 3

No no no no no what we NEED to do is put sharks in space suits into space with giant lasers attached to their heads and vaporize all the space junk.

Parent

RE: Space Wall-E

By Paloney on 2/19/2009 12:07:05 AM , Rating: 2

We should just put shields on everything.

Parent

RE: Space Wall-E

By MrPoletski on 2/19/2009 8:59:57 AM , Rating: 2

RED ALERT!

*tugs shirt*

Parent

RE: Space Wall-E

By marvdmartian on 2/19/2009 10:07:34 AM , Rating: 2

Better yet, find someone to be the Fred Sanford of space, to collect all that junk!!

Parent

Laser Broom

By MozeeToby on 2/18/2009 5:18:11 PM , Rating: 2

OK, this problem has already been researched and a viable solution has been found.

All you need is a powerful ground based laser with active optics to allow it to shoot through the atmosphere effectively. The laser ablates some material off the objects it hits and produces thrust. The problem is, in order to move larger objects ( > 10 cm ) you need a laser that would violate several weapons treaties.

Of course, any system designed to clear out space debris could just as easily be used to damage or destroy satellites so if we're going to deal with this problem the treaties will eventually need to be changed anyway.

RE: Laser Broom

By randomposter on 2/18/2009 5:30:39 PM , Rating: 2

The objects larger than 10cm, while carrying the most destructive kinetic energy, are also relatively few, easy to track, and easy to avoid.

Parent

RE: Laser Broom

By StraightPipe on 2/18/2009 6:00:52 PM , Rating: 5

Like the defunct Russian Sat?

//oh wait, damn

Parent

RE: Laser Broom

By thepalinator on 2/18/2009 9:05:29 PM , Rating: 2

Unless Obama signs some new space weapons treaty, there isn't anything banning us from making gigantic lasers that can destroy satellites.

Parent

RE: Laser Broom

By nugundam93 on 2/19/2009 8:09:49 AM , Rating: 2

i say we give dr. evil's sharks with frickin lasers on their heads some spacesuits so that they can vaporize and clean up the debris field.

Parent

RE: Laser Broom

By nugundam93 on 2/19/2009 8:10:59 AM , Rating: 2

aw snap. i just had to repost. lol!

Parent

RE: Laser Broom

By Shadowself on 2/19/2009 10:30:30 AM , Rating: 2

This won't work effectively. The angle of the incidence of the laser will not produce the ablation thrust in the direction it is needed. You need the laser to be in orbit and in the orbit path ahead of the target.

And what treaties do you know of that state that you cannot put up such lasers? How do you know they don't already exist?

In fact, the first time a reconnaissance satellite was "dazzled" by a laser from the ground was when the Russians temporarily blinded one of the U.S. ISR satellites back in the late 1970s. Clearly much more powerful lasers and better optics have been created since then.

Parent

Solution was already found.

By bunnyfubbles on 2/18/2009 8:26:01 PM , Rating: 5

Obviously the real reason for the large hardon collider is to produce black holes to suck up all the debris.

RE: Solution was already found.

By prenox on 2/18/2009 8:47:19 PM , Rating: 5

I would hope you mean Large Hadron Collider. But you could be talking about some porn I guess.

Parent

RE: Solution was already found.

By Creig on 2/19/2009 9:53:43 AM , Rating: 2

Large hardon collider? Black holes? Suck up?

This might not solve the satellite problem, but it sure sounds like great script for a science themed porn DVD.

Parent

RE: Solution was already found.

By JediJeb on 2/19/2009 11:05:29 AM , Rating: 2

The first test of this system was during the Super Bowl.

Parent

By MaulSidious on 2/18/2009 5:04:31 PM , Rating: 2

So theres an estimated 13000 satellites and other objects in orbit and the us military are tracking 19000? shouldn't those numbers be the other way around?

RE: ?

By rcc on 2/18/2009 5:09:45 PM , Rating: 2

They just haven't found the other 6,000 yet. Give them time.

However, the wording does imply that the 13,000 is items that need to be protected, as opposed to the 6,000 chunks of crappage. If true, there are a lot more pieces of usable hardware up there than my first guess.

Parent

RE: ?

By MaulSidious on 2/18/2009 7:46:46 PM , Rating: 2

But if the us are TRACKING 19000 then there must be more than an estimated 13000 objects in orbit.

Parent

RE: ?

By Gestahl on 2/18/2009 11:03:26 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
The U.S. military actively monitors at least 19,000 objects in space -- ranging from working satellites to little pieces of space litter

These little pieces of space litter would include things like the toolbag that NASA "dropped".

Parent

Uhhh...

By Jeff7181 on 2/18/2009 9:49:57 PM , Rating: 2

Why don't they just fling shit in the general direction of the sun? I don't think it's possible to pollute the sun.

RE: Uhhh...

By ADDAvenger on 2/18/2009 11:41:14 PM , Rating: 2

If certain countries are too lazy and cheap to push their junk down into the atmosphere, what makes you think they're going to take the effort to shove that junk into the sun?

Parent

RE: Uhhh...

By Shadowself on 2/19/2009 10:57:55 AM , Rating: 2

The propellant requirements to "de-orbit" into the sun are HUGE compared to that necessary to graveyard for GSOs or de-orbit to the Earth for LEOs.

Parent

Anyone remember the TV show "Quark"

By JediJeb on 2/18/2009 6:39:37 PM , Rating: 5

Back in the late 70's or maybe early 80's there was a show called Quark which was more or less about a space junk colletor. Maybe that is what we need to build, a orbital vessel that can scoup up the junk and bring it down, much like capturing statellites in the shuttle, but something hardy enough to just net them or something.

Also make a treaty that any object in orbit that has not been functional for one year becomes common salvage. That would make sure each space nation cleaned up their own junk by deorbiting it to make sure no one else got to their secrets. Imagine it this were the case, maybe private corporations like SpaceX or Virgin Galactic would develop the garbage ships and bring the stuff down either on contract or to sell to the highest bidder. They could probably fund a lot of R&D off that.

Domino Effect

By Mclendo06 on 2/18/2009 6:15:10 PM , Rating: 2

What is really disconcerting about this is that each time one of these collisions happens, it makes it more likely that another will occur because each collision results in the creation of hundreds or thousands of pieces of space junk covering a variety of orbits as opposed to just one satellite in one orbit. I wonder if this could turn into a runaway process - say some sizable piece of debris from this collision hits another satellite... it would be an exponential growth in the number of collisions until we started running out of satellites that could collide. As no one knows what to do about the junk, this could potentially eliminate the widespread use of satellites in the most popular types of orbit.

RE: Domino Effect

By ekv on 2/19/2009 2:33:19 AM , Rating: 2

Yeah, I read that too ... [note the date of publication! Oct. 13, 2008]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026776.200...

"Network attack inspires space junk clean-up", but that actually means that researchers are going to USE a network attack to figure out which objects have the most potential of causing a "domino effect". Then focus resources on neutralizing those few(er) objects.

I personally prefer the Planetes solution 8) Ok, I jest ... kind of.

Parent

VASIMR Rocket with a Huge Net

By SpaceJumper on 2/19/2009 8:17:36 AM , Rating: 2

Only the VASIMR rocket engine with a huge net can chase and catch the space junks. Conventional rocket won't do, it will be too heavy and can not do high speed pulse propulsion.

RE: VASIMR Rocket with a Huge Net

By Shadowself on 2/19/2009 11:00:48 AM , Rating: 2

VASIMIR is an interesting option, but not the only one. Several other electric propulsion engines can be viable given a proper power source.

You don't need pulse propulsion, you need velocity matching (or at least very, very close to matching for effective capture). This can be done by several different means.

Parent

I said it last time, we need a garbage shuttle!

By Hokum on 2/19/2009 5:40:15 AM , Rating: 2

Planetes had the right idea!

For those that dont know what this is, look here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes

We need the DS-12 Toy Box, and a crew of nutters to crew it.