Cleaning up Space Trash

Hi guys,

this is an issue that I have been worrying about for a long time.

If we are not careful we will end up with a space environment that will not allow us to use the space environment. That may be alarmist but I have been following the issue for more years than I can recall.

What will cause us to sort ourselves out, compulsory insurance on every launch, civil and military? A defined task for every launch to clean up afterwards - but who will police it? Do we set up a United nations club that will be the policeman? Do we just ensure that every launch has a follow up which will make sure that every launch has a follow up clean up?

It is beginning to worry me that Space is an enormous place but with, now, many thousands of Space Objects flying around in loose orbits who can know what is where and what , therefore is safe.

We need to start thinking about clean up mechanisms and who will implement them, and more importantly pay for them.

Sleepy

Sounds like a perfect place to test space based lasers and tracking systems.Great target practice since there's so much junk up there.

It's a huge issue. Now for the 2nd time recently the ISS was about to be hit. That has changed and they are about 1/2 mile from impact. Last time the crew had to bail into the escape pod.

We need to build a couple machines that can go around the space that is occupied by satellites and space junk and start sucking these into a container like a vacuum cleaner of sorts. Or a net that can travel a little faster than the space junk and catch it in the net. Once full, set course for the sun to be incinerated. Only problem I see with this is a rogue flare that could throw it all back on the Earth along with the plasma. Or so send this to the outer spaces, but then this would become someone else's garbage. Man has polluted our ground water, lakes, streams, oceans, Earth, air and now space. Is there anything Man has not polluted?

Space should be a bit challenging, and should be somewhat easily accomplished providing we can build some units and get them into space in one piece, and do it in under 10 years and under a multi billion dollar budget. Which basically leaves NASA out of the running for this. I think a private company could do it cheaper and better with out all the bureaucratic crap.

Jimh77,

I agree that it needs to be tackled long before we run out of launch capability.

Your suggestion of providing a garbage Truck facility is what is needed but who will provide it and at whose cost? I am sceptical that governments will provide the facility; I cannot see a UN facility doing it and I am even less sure that a private company would have the incentive to take it on.

But man does need to clean up his back yard, for us and future generations; it ought , perhaps to be a spin off of the Global warming solution programmes?

I am quite pessimistic that a near term solution can be found. The lack of response to this thread shows how important it is viewed by other members.

Good Hunting

Sleepy

LLoyds and other insurers would be the group to approach, but only after we have an affordable solution.

AIG exec's sure have the funding now!

And KBR is building it !

If you watch the movie Wall-E, it shows an earth that is huge mountains of garbage, and near space is a huge collection of junk... quite an interesting picture.

Chris

Yes, seen it and we are appoaching that scene very quickly. In a cpl years NORAD will not be able to see anything but space junk and the ISS.

It seems to me to be a perfect oppertunity for a salvage company. There are a lot of costly parts and machinery up there. Maybe Virgin has something like this up their sleeve. We will see!

John

I can envision collecting the debris, I can not envision bringing any of it back to earth. Way too costly and too dangerous. Some of the chemical compositions have probably gone through some type of morphism and will not be the same as when they first left Earth.

To eliminate what's already there, send up an unmanned rocket and via remote control maneuver up to the space junk, adhere via an adhesive and send it into a trajectory into the sun, back to earth or to a collection site! It would be no challenge for my son the video game expert.

Space junk is not all in a nice, narrow band of orbits. It takes energy to change orbits, and even more to send a garbage collector vehicle after the junk. It would be phenomenally uneconomical to push all of this stuff to escape velocity to dump it into the sun or deep space.

To expand on LaserLover's suggestion, one possible solution is a constellation of solar powered laser satellites that are programmed to deflect debris (Google "laser propulsion"), nudging items a little bit on every flyby until they are in a collection orbit. A garbage collector would then pull the stuff into a recycling station where it could be used as raw material for space-based manufacturing. Much of the cost of satellites is simply getting them up there; the junk is already there, so why not reuse it where possible? This would take a long time, probably years, but hey, who cares as long as the job is getting done faster than the stuff accumulates?

Unusable material could be collected and fired into the atmosphere for incineration if it contains no toxic elements - just like natural meteoroids.

That's a suggestion for the stuff that is already there. The other issue is minimizing additional junk. A common source is used booster rockets. Sometimes these explode after orbiting for a while, possibly because fuel usage is not 100% and eventually the small amount of fuel and oxidizer remaining meet somewhere in the plumbing and react hypergolically. These could be a major hazard for salvage operations. There are several possible solutions. One is to require fuel and oxidizer valve shutoff after booster separation to reduce the chance of accidental reignition. Another is to design for guaranteed full combustion. Finally, boosters should be directed toward one of the agreed-upon garbage collection orbits described above or de-orbited (although either requires the expense of additional fuel).

As other posters have noted, one of the major hurdles is administration - who runs the program? It is the responsibility of those who launch items into orbit to clean up after themselves. Since many nations and some multinational corporations are involved, this may be best done under a treaty. This treaty would promulgate methods for the reduction of new junk, establish garbage collection orbits, and offer some sort of incentive for the development of orbiting recycling systems. Those who fail to abide by the agreement would find that purchases of space-related hardware are embargoed, just as we presently embargo violators of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

"Space junk is not all in a nice, narrow band of orbits"

Totally right. This makes me think that the new nano-carbon-tube might be able to be used to bring all the big pieces to one velocity, and therefore, one orbit. Like spiderman shooting a web, if we were able to attach a rope from a higher/faster piece to a lower/slower piece, then they would tumble and exchange energy until they were both moving at the same velocity, don't you think?

Maybe everytime the shuttle comes down, it could attach a strong cable to a large piece,.. and then as they de-orbit, attach the other end to a lower piece.. and then Run, before the cable gets tight.

Chris

how about sending up a small "black hole".......

Black holes are greedy neighbors. Before long it would be larger by one earth mass and one lunar mass ... I don't think this is the way we want to end our problem.

How would you get the water there? It still costs thousands of dollars to put a kilogram of anything into orbit, so any cleanup system should be designed for minimum use of expendables.

If you are tempted to suggest snagging a few comets, remember that they don't usually get that close to us, they have a LOT of momentum that must be changed to bring them into earth orbit (more $), and there aren't that many.

I don't want to throw cold water on the concept, but water in orbit is a very scarce and valuable commodity. There are three things in orbit that are relatively cheap: vacuum, ionizing radiation (actually a negative value so far), and solar energy. It is technically feasible to convert solar energy into laser beams with little or no expendable mass needed (just station-keeping fuel for the laser satellite), so this seems to be an obvious answer.

The Ice Cloud is sort of a cool idea, though I reject it as more dangerous than the junk.

Sounds to me as if you've then got an iceberg.

(I did note the adjective "cloud", and have therefore not completely rejected the concept for I would expect 5 gallons, or 40 pounds of water sprayed right would make a 1,000 foot cloud, though I am afraid it wouldn't stay as a cloud, and would glom together into a rock of ice.)

Therefore I prefer the Raygun, Laser approach. Overall I think such work is for robots.

I will also say that one way to get what you need, is to ask for it.

Got a system with a price tag?

In my opinion, the laser idea appears to me to be flawed. The things in orbit are composed of matter, and are moving at orbital velocity, and therefore have inertia proportional to their mass. Firing a laser at it can only convert that matter to another form of matter. The amount of energy required for a laser to change the inertial path or velocity of 5000 lbs of dead satellite is so huge as to be near impossible. Sure the laser can cut the satellite, and it can super heat the matter to plasma, but that plasma cloud will still have all the inertia of the original body.

If you wish to make this disappear, either use antimatter, or expend the same methodology that put the object there in the first place; that is, fire an inertial object to alter the inertial energy and orbital speed of the junk, so that it will either burn up in the atmosphere, or leave earth's gravity. Alternatively, you can simply go and pick it up.

The ice cloud idea is reasonable in this regard, for assuming that you have imparted to the ice the necessary velocity and inertia, it can proceed to spread out, and impact various bodies in orbit, and alter their velocities. Any chunk of ice that impacts a piece of junk will also have its velocity altered, and both will hopefully burn up in the atmosphere, due to gravity. The rest of the ice, as Transcendian points out, will continue to orbit, and therefore cause risk for travellers passing through orbital bands.

Humans put this junk in orbit, over a period of the last 48 years.. and it has cost us billions to do so. We will not clean it up, until the economics starts to present costs to us, that make it reasonable to pay for the cleanup, given that it won't be cheap to do it.

The same technology that is used to divert asteroids and meteors from colliding with earth will be very effective in changing the trajectories and orbits of space junk.

Personally, I prefer the Ion Cannon approach, which is accelerating particles 'with mass' to light speed, and making those particles massive. The problem with the Ion Cannon is that, if the acceleration is basically instant, there is no difference from a regular cannon, except the method of achieving acceleration.

If however a method of acceleration such as a long rail-gun were used, then the possibility of lower energy consumption exists. If you imagine the Big Bertha guns, doubled or tripled in size, you can begin to imagine an intercontinental ballistic cannon. Having a cannon that can shoot objects out of orbit is another size or two larger than that. Having one that can take out an asteroid is an order of magnitude larger yet... and therefore is a project that would take billions of dollars and at least a generation of time to do it.

A Tachyon is a massless particle moving faster than light speed in a vacuum. What would the properties be of a particle with mass be, (such as an Ion) if moving faster than light in a vacuum? Would it be a black hole? or the seed of a planet or a star? How would we know? I bet we would not be able to survive the particle if we could create it, for it could be more massive than our planet, and therefore, more destructive than a hurricane, if brought into existence in some sort of accelerator ring like an SSC.

At some point, we are going to have to master gravity, and understand fundamentally what it is. Given that, then we can begin engineer solutions, like an orbital solar-system tugboat, that can tow junk, or asteroids into different orbital paths and trajectories. (the ancients used to call the orbit of a planet it's 'destiny')

then we will have the power of the gods, and able to change the path of an object in orbit, like what was done to our Phobos probe, which Reagan reacted to.

Chris

I sent an email to NASA asking about what their plans are for dealing with the space junk, Then gave some ideas that were mentioned on CR4 about who would be responsible for the price tag of this venture. Don't be surprised if someone comes to CR4 from NASA. Right. Hell, they may even learn something coming here.

I was told to expect an answer in 3-4 weeks from them. So we'll see if they do or not.

I still think the best thing to do is group then all together using some type of net into a couple of masses rather than having them all over the place. Then figure how to remove them from orbit. That wold take NORAD from having to follow thousands of pieces.

Not to get off topic too much, Black Holes, does anyone have an opinion on the new collider? Maybe it's good it is still off line?

We need flying shrimp boats they haul in everything.

Guys,

This article popped into my inbox this morning, via the BBC's website.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7916582.stm

worth a read, the article is by Paul Rincon

Science Reporter

BBC News

I found the BBC article extremely helpful.

It was a fine article in great part because it concluded with realistic suggestions for remedy to the problem.

Pretty wild when you think of it that there is no equivalent to International Air Traffic Control.

I was able to capture some potential possible with the Laser corralling sort of system, for it seemed to be more practical than I or Chrisg288 earlier felt.

The idea of repeatedly and bit by bit moving junk around instead of all at once is apparently the key to that.

I am concerned that some of the impediments to a sensible system for protection of those living in outerspace, and the satellites that we depend on appear to imply national agendas that may well be evidence of violations of the International Space Treaty.

(It has been awhile since I read the Treaty, but I suspect those actions that cause no advantage to shared interests, could be construed as contravening the spirit of that treaty.)

International Corporations ought not have power to make the situation for those either attempting competition for business in the Earth Close Orbit regions unduly difficult, or endangering those living and working there.

Nations ought not either be allowed to make Close Earth Orbit Zones, dangerous either. Littering ought not be allowed, is a simple way of putting that.

In general I am for giving regulatory powers to institutions that have succeeded in the past in International Arenas.

What is the exact name of the International Aviation Administration, equivalent to the FAA?

Seems to me that lessons and protocols applied by that Institution would at the least provide precepts for outer space and close orbit needs.

Maritime Law is another area I would look to for guidance.

Transcendian,

Glad that you found that useful - am sure that this is a problem that we could have minimised if we had tackled it a long time ago.

Now we are faced with an enormous problem and the promise that if we don't clean up then Nature will mak matters a lot worse for us. I , for one, am really surprised that we have , apparently, only had one collision to date. Matbe there have been more that we have not been made aware of.

The prospect of doing things gradually was already touched on by one of us and it might be the way to go. It is still going to cost an enormous amount of energy to clean up the space around us but the sooner we start the sooner we will achieve an improvement.

Who, however, is going to pay is likely to be a key question.

Perhaps we ought to collect a library of useful articles under a CR4 flag? and review the situation on an annual basis at least.

Headings could be Political, Finance, Tipping Points, Impact on systems, Government and Intergovernement bodies, Space Aeronautical control and so on.

If we are shown to be unneccesarily cautious then we could wind ourselves up? And all we have lost is some man hours.

It is an area that I would like to participate in.

Sleepy

In general, the best way to get something done is to figure out how somebody can make money providing the service.

Let's look at the possibilities. It costs as much as $20,000/kg to put something into a low orbit and more if one goes out farther. We have literally tons of junk in orbit already. If a system of automatic junk deflector and collector satellites can be put in place, eventually the materials can be collected for recycling using solar energy.

The question is whether the cost of the deflector/collector satellites will be low enough to turn a profit on collecting materials for orbital manufacturing. In principle, it might be profitable to fly up circuit modules and fuel for orbital assembly onto satellite frames, since the weight of the frames does not have to be lifted through the atmosphere. The fuel itself would be a small amount compared to that required to launch the same satellite from the ground. The satellite itself could be smaller and lighter since it doesn't have to withstand the high g-forces of an earth-to-orbit trip.

This is a general starting point - somebody with access to the numbers could study this and see if it can be made into a workable business plan. There would be a lot of development work, and a considerable risk, but if it works, the payoff (in new technology as well as the material benefits) could perhaps be worth as much as the development of the communications satellite industry.

So, if the case can be made to investors for turning a profit on collecting the orbital trash, there won't be as much need for international bureaucracy to drag the business down.