space debris

showtime17 · 2004-05-23 22:02:11

The problem of space debris and all kinds of junk flying around in earth orbit is a big problem for spaceships and satellites. Even a tiny piece of junk can cause serious damage and with more stuff being sent up there, more and more space debris is created. A lot of it is discarded parts of old satellites or other things and I was wondering if any of it could still be useful? Could some of these things be recycled? Would it be feasible to launch some sort of a "cleaner" craft to collect all this garbage and launch it into space junkyard, for example maybe in orbit around the moon? this could potentially create a supply of raw material for construction in space and also solve the space debris issue. Would this be feasible? Or is the junk just worthless? However I do think just getting most of the debris out of the way would be of benefit.

showtime17 · 2004-05-24 19:36:37

doesnt anyone think that this topic is important? space debris, especially if it continues to grow could pose great dangers to the human exploration of space and also the mars mission, especially if it is assembled in space. (staying longer in earth orbit increases its chance of getting hit by some of this man-made space debris) I was also wondering if any of this space debris could be potentially useful, for example as raw materials or spare parts. What should be the solution to the problem of space debris?

Dook · 2004-05-24 19:50:19

Don't know about recycling any of that debris but it is a problem. One shuttle flight came back with a chip in the window, a paint chip travelling at 18,000 mph implanted itself in it. Think of what would have happened if it would have hit an astronaut on a EVA.

Everyone agrees its a problem but there is nothing we can do about it.

quasar777 · 2004-05-25 07:09:05

one solution may be sending unmanned craft to Geo & manned craft to high LEO. i`m led to believe the spacejunk is slower moving in higher orbits.

Bill White · 2004-05-25 08:03:00

Don't know about recycling any of that debris but it is a problem. One shuttle flight came back with a chip in the window, a paint chip travelling at 18,000 mph implanted itself in it. Think of what would have happened if it would have hit an astronaut on a EVA.
Everyone agrees its a problem but there is nothing we can do about it.

I suggest we move towards using equatorial orbits for on orbit assembly which will allow the debris to collect in rings or bands rather than in a cloud around the Earth.

Then a wacky? idea:

Orbit (in retrograde) foam structures formed from plastic (similiar to aerogel) that degrade to gas in the presence of UV after a few weeks.

Track the debris and intercept with a foam package moving in retrograde. The debris will punch through but it will slow down and de-orbit sooner rather than later.

The targeting uses the same tracking and intercept software being planned for missile defense except we target space debris with UV degradable foam.

= = =

Limiting large scale on-orbit operations to zero degrees inclination will also greatly simplify the tracking and intercept of debris.

= = =

Is there a plastic that can degrade into gaseous components in the presence of UV?

Otherwise, attach a tether terminator to the foam structure and de-orbit it after the debris intercepts.

http://www.tethers.com/TT.html]http://w … om/TT.html

Palomar · 2004-05-25 08:15:00

doesnt anyone think that this topic is important?

*Hello. Yes. I posted http://www.space.com/businesstechnology … .html]this article a week or two ago, in a different thread. There's been discussion (scant, but some discussion) in the past. Using "Search" feature might assist in locating previous comments made about the topic.

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-25 09:02:52

Unfortunatly Earth Orbit is a very big place... launching anything to actually impact with the material would have to be very big and even then wouldn't cover enough of the sky.

I have heard of another idea though... using a high-power laser in orbit or beamed from the ground, run through a lens to spread it out a little bit along one axis perhaps, and sweep the beam back and forth to simply vaporize the smaller bits... when it gets down to the size of dust, its just not much of a problem.

quasar777 · 2004-05-25 23:01:07

it would be a darn shame to vaporize it if there were a salvage solution. certainly LEOjunk should be vaprorized. i`m sorry to say to say ISS could eventually become junk too & how would we deal w/ that? Hubble way go to. a shame MIR had to go too. these artifacts can`t always be so easily replaced. i`m thinking whenever possible crash things on The Moon, possibly things w/ cameras. either that or higher orbit boost. btw does anyone know the highest "safe" orbit as i understand it GEO contains the Van Allen Belts which are atm inimical to humans, otherwise i`d think we`d have a manned station there by now.

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-26 08:49:23

The actual mass of space debries is rather small actually, its the high velocity that makes it so dangerous... so, there isn't a whole lot to actually recycle in the first place.

Boosting to a high orbit takes alot of energy, and so does boosting things twards the Moon, so whatever it is it would have to be extremely valuble to warrent such a mission, like saving the HST.

Putting humans in GEO puts them in the Van Allen belts yes, but more then that there simply isn't a good reason to be up there. It also requires a huge payload penalty to get anything to that high altitude versus LEO.

Ian Flint · 2004-05-26 09:13:51

Has anyone thought of using high powered electromagnets to collect this space junk? There are some problems with this approach, of course. The magnets couldn't collect ceramics, paint chips, etc. And, they might just slingshot space debris to a more erratic orbit. Maybe if the magnets were launched to approach debris from behind and gently pull it into a lower orbit...

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-26 09:35:23

Too much of space debries is made of a favorite metal of the aerospace industry... aluminum. Which isn't magnetic. Almost none of the space debries up there is magnetic. The size of the magnetic field needed to attract material from kilometers away is also way beyond our current ability.

A laser beamed from the ground and mirrored off a satellite in orbit is probably the best solution.

dicktice · 2004-05-26 10:22:59

The idea of passive tether assisted de-orbiting of space junk into the atmosphere shouldn't be ignored, or set aside, just because how to go about it isn't being discussed. It needs more brainstorming, for sure, because it's an open-ended idea: gets better the more we gain expertise accessing orbial rubbish, under microgravity conditions.

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-26 11:23:53

Its a nice idea and all, but...

1: It isn't practical to slap one on everything we send up, they would have to be fairly heavy to drag down a spent booster stage.

2: Won't get space debries already in orbit.

3: Won't get everything even if we did (explosive bolts, payload adapters, satellite farings, etc)

4: Very slow, making it less precise and easy to control for large objects that may survive deorbiting.

I think its a better idea to figure out how to deorbit upper stages activly and go ahead with a concept for collecting or destroying of loose debries.

dicktice · 2004-05-27 07:17:13

I know: Tethers represent a solution waiting for the right up, or down, orbit transfer problem(s) to solve.

bolbuyk · 2004-05-28 07:12:23

About deorbiting of large stages: As far as I know, this is no problem. In most cases, the stages used for launch don't reach the LEO-velocity, but remain some hundreds m/s beneath. They crash in the atmosphrere and land in a predicted area. The last boost to reach LEO is nearly always given by a small 3d stage, eg SIVB with Apollo and OMS with the Space Shuttle. Also Soyuz has such a small stage. Stuff like Mir and ISS can deorbit by one deorbit burn with propellant formerly used for slight altitude-corrections. I think even sattelite fairings don't reach LEO but come into the atmosphere about half an hour after launch. Most stuff is really small, but dangerous due to the velocity.

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-28 08:26:42

Good to know, but i'm also thinking about those 3rd stages, the ones used for GTO insertion... would those burn up on the way down?

You are right though, that most of the worrisome debries is small, which would make a "laser broom" an attractive solution.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-05-28 09:08:11

the ones used for GTO insertion... would those burn up on the way down?

Depends. Assuming they go straight into GTO (rather than into LEO then GTO) then yes they should, since they have never circularised thier orbit.

On NASA solution I remember from the time of Freedom was to build a big square the size of several foot-ball fields using a beam-builder, fill it with a few layers of cling-film (or something very similar) and fit it with ion thrusters. The idea bieng that this could sweep freedom's orbital volume clean of small pieces which would impact the film (possibly several times) eventually slowing them down enough to burn up in the atmosphere.

ANTIcarrot.

Bill White · 2004-05-28 09:26:19

On NASA solution I remember from the time of Freedom was to build a big square the size of several foot-ball fields using a beam-builder, fill it with a few layers of cling-film (or something very similar) and fit it with ion thrusters. The idea bieng that this could sweep freedom's orbital volume clean of small pieces which would impact the film (possibly several times) eventually slowing them down enough to burn up in the atmosphere.
ANTIcarrot.

I am attracted to the idea of doing this, perhaps on a larger scale and also restrict the majority of LEO operations to within a few degrees of a perfect equatorial orbit.

Once interplanetary trade commences, incoming payloads, and small asteroids moved to LEO for mining must arrive on the equatorial plane (easily verified by radar and telescope observation well in advance of Earth-fall) otherwise US Space Command gets really annoyed.

Non-equatorial orbits are used by permission only, for sufficiently good cause.

IIRC - - all orbital inclinations are equal for purposes of travel to L1, is that correct?

Anyway, if the vast majority of commerical LEO operations are done at zero degrees inclination, the orbital volume to be tracked and swept clean by giant arrays of cling film and foam and laser brooms is very greatly reduced.

= = =

This also adds security to every northern hemisphere nation.

As commercial operations increase and the total quantity of mass in LEO increases, having these payloads overfly US, EU, Russian and Chinese cities every 90 minutes will give people like the NORAD generals apoplexy, at least IMHO.

= = =

Edit: Equatorial launches have physics advantages as well.

= = =

Edit: Equatorial orbital restrictions will facilitate wealth creation in the equatorial nations, which will help assure that the development of space benefits all humanity, not merely 1st world nations.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-04-25 14:32:56

Experts issue call to regulate space debris as levels of junk mount

https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Expe … t_999.html

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-08-23 11:09:48

The Irony. ClearSpace-1 Couldn't Clean up Space Debris Because its Target Already Got hit by Space Debris, Creating Even More Space Debris.

https://www.universetoday.com/162885/th … ce-debris/

tahanson43206 · 2023-08-23 11:56:16

For Mars_B4_Moon ...

Just a comment in general ... thanks for delivering so many links with comments

I noted you brought back a topic from 2004 recently - I am glad to see these old topics back in view again, even if only for a brief time.

(th)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-08-29 14:25:21

Another news item

TransAstra claims NASA contract for debris capture bag

https://spacenews.com/transastra-claims … pture-bag/

Space logistics startup TransAstra won a NASA contract to manufacture a bag to capture orbital debris.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-05-23 22:02:11

Re: space debris

#2 2004-05-24 19:36:37

Re: space debris

#3 2004-05-24 19:50:19

Re: space debris

#4 2004-05-25 07:09:05

Re: space debris

#5 2004-05-25 08:03:00

Re: space debris

#6 2004-05-25 08:15:00

Re: space debris

#7 2004-05-25 09:02:52

Re: space debris

#8 2004-05-25 23:01:07

Re: space debris

#9 2004-05-26 08:49:23

Re: space debris

#10 2004-05-26 09:13:51

Re: space debris

#11 2004-05-26 09:35:23

Re: space debris

#12 2004-05-26 10:22:59

Re: space debris

#13 2004-05-26 11:23:53

Re: space debris

#14 2004-05-27 07:17:13

Re: space debris

#15 2004-05-28 07:12:23

Re: space debris

#16 2004-05-28 08:26:42

Re: space debris

#17 2004-05-28 09:08:11

Re: space debris

#18 2004-05-28 09:26:19

Re: space debris

#19 2022-04-25 14:32:56

Re: space debris

#20 2023-08-23 11:09:48

Re: space debris

#21 2023-08-23 11:56:16

Re: space debris

#22 2023-08-29 14:25:21

Re: space debris

Board footer