The race to destroy space garbage
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
The relative speeds of any two objects in low orbit means that physically catching much of anything is horribly inefficient. The DeltaV requirements for a robot grabbing one thing, then moving to grab another, means you are probably better off launching a separate robot for each target. Any complete answer must therefore involve some means of moving debris without physically touching it. Magnets and lasers are the only hope.
Polar orbits are something of an exception, as are consolations designed for total coverage of the earth.
GPS satellites for example have basically a hot spare that can easily replace another satellite in each of the 6 planes. So, if you start out next to one GPS satellites there are 4 more you can easily reach. AKA visiting all 33 active ones would take 5 major burns, and lot's of tiny ones.
Sure, after a collision you can end up with a shotgun blast that would take a lot of effort to de orbit. But, having say 20 tugs that all deorbit the largest debris but getting them to LEO is a lot more manageable than you might think.
PS: The very tiny stuff is cleaned up by the solar wind over time and mostly not a problem in the first place.
The larger stuff on the other hand can cause serious impacts by transferring its momentum to the site of impact and causing damage to spacecraft.
An elastic net would let the small stuff zing around it while it could be deployed to pick up the larger stuff, by moving slightly fasted than geosynchronous orbit. Then it can actually toss them in various directions either slightly towards our atmpsphere or slightly away from Earth, to adjust its own course without expending fuel.
We could literally write a navigation program that would guide it on a path to clean up a lot of major debris this way without expending much fuel. It would only need its power for the tossing, which could be done with small explosions or mechanical pushes. The small stuff wouldn't alter its course much and the AI could correct it. Plus since it's in near earth orbit we could send updated routes to it.
Is anyone interested in writing code to route such a "space bot" by collecting and throwing stuff in various directions? We can simulate it in a 3D simulation with virtual random garbage of various sizes orbiting a planet.
Then you could present this sim to NASA or the Chinese space agency and make some big bucks :)
So, even if the orbits where random you could simplify the problem by just sending more craft which would then need a smaller range of orbits. But, even within that model things are still far from random even though you will get a lot of drift over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
And, if you speak German, yesterdays "Sternengeschichten" podcast by Florian Freistetter is about this problem:
http://scienceblogs.de/astrodicticum-simplex/2017/04/07/ster...
It is excellent though
The moon breaks in half in the first page, but a cascade event happens about a hundred pages into the book, then further changes happen :) . So I think it is accurate to say that it is analogous!
There would be obvious value in creating a space junk collection/elimination capability, but the expense when compared to the individual offset/mitigation solutions, keeps everyone from being the first mover on this.
It's clearly not a big enough problem for there to be enough economic incentives to solve it.
Sad when you think about it.
The point of Kessler syndrome is that it's an exponential growth in number of objects.
Niel's statement is analog to saying "The LHC could create a black hole that kills us all". Yeah... I guess on some theoretical level it's possible... but it's extremely unlikely. Same concept applies here. I'm quite disappointed in him saying "There's a very good chance", because that is far from true.
Additionally, I wonder if nations with things in orbit have also considered that possibility.
It would take a LOT of junk and a lot of money and time to ruin all orbits.
Even LEO is at least as big as the surface of the earth, and getting debris to stay in that orbit for more than a few months takes thrusters to keep it from decaying.
So if you fill an altitude range with enough orbiting shrapnel, you can ruin the party for everyone. The movie 'Gravity' has some breathtaking visuals of how such a runaway event would look.
From the article:
Collisions are rare, but half of all near-misses today are caused by debris from just two incidents. In 2007, China destroyed one of its own satellites with a ballistic missile. In 2009 an American commercial communications satellite collided with a defunct Russian weather satellite.
There are only a handful of nations with the launch capabilities, but if any one of them wanted to ruin the party for everyone, they could probably accomplish it by hitting a few satellites with a few missiles. I don't imagine it would take very many destroyed satellites to create a serious debris hazard.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/62n21j/wha...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome#Avoidance_and...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_broom
I guess it isn't something that would be on lots of satellites. But it wouldn't need to be.
Imagine, a satellite is collecting space junk it encounters, and compressing a big spring using solar power. Once it gets enough junk, it launches the junk backwards, giving it momentum and sending the junk into an unstable orbit.
I was wondering if SpaceX couldn't use its second stages to grab some junk while it is deorbiting. That would be some seriously good publicity.