Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI
SpaceKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Space Forum / Space Flight / June 2009



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Mopping up Space Junk

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Andy - 06 May 2009 12:30 GMT
I have a few ideas to throw into the global pot for consideration.

After their useful lives, some satellites can deorbit with chemical or
ion rockets or deploy vary large sails to increase their drag
coefficient or be perturbed by the solar wind. Another method could be
to extend long cables to use the Earth’s magnetic field to induce
drag.
However, all these require active systems installed on the junk and be
commanded to deploy.

The only methods for getting rid of space debris is to either go up
there and get it, or wait a very long time for it to decay out or hit
something else and hope that the resulting debris ends up with lower
velocities that will decay quickly and not contribute to the cascade
effect.

Matching an orbit to be able to retrieve something is horrendously
costly in fuel and really not practical except for large or valuable
pieces in really inconvenient orbits.

My idea would be to scale-up Stardust's aerogel capture system and
deploy kilometre-sized megafoams in orbits designed to intersect as
many debris fields as possible. While probably not able to capture
most debris, one or more collisions could reduce their kinetic energy
substantially to aid quicker reentry. Any foam shrapnel produced
should be relatively harmless and decay very quickly. I can't imagine
any process that could create kilometre-scale aerogels on Earth, let
alone in-situ!

A few tons of foaming agents could be shipped up in batches and then
mixed together when the right quantities are reached. Foams would
expand massively in a vacuum if the bubbles in the material could
remain gastight under the extreme stretching. Space would be a very
harsh environment for foam, as they would deform a lot depending on
temperature so some pretty amazing materials would need to be used.

Many shapes are possible - either big amorphous blobs, tentacular
tangles or more structured lattices.
If foams are extruded while being formed they could make long
continuous tentacles.
These could also be used instead of sails as aerobrakes for
deorbiting.
I imagine enormous structures could be made in space with just a few
tons of materials.
They would have to start off in high orbits because their own orbital
decay would be substantial. Maintaining altitude and manoeuverability
would be difficult using rockets, especially after absorbing unknown
amounts of angular kinetic energy from the collisions it is looking
for!

If the foaming material has a high enough albedo or aluminized, they
could provide usable night illumination too.
If we make thousands of them, perhaps they could also reduce
insolation by a useful amount as well.

The foam would have to be environmentally benign for reentry. If it
didn't burn up it would shrink massively with increasing atmospheric
pressure. If enough survives, it might even preserve anything it
caught.

NASA know an awful lot about foam now, anyone from NASA like to
comment on feasibility?

How easy would it be to make foams in a vacuum?

Andy Lee Robinson
Cray74@gmail.com - 11 May 2009 13:33 GMT
> My idea would be to scale-up Stardust's aerogel capture system and
> deploy kilometre-sized megafoams in orbits designed to intersect as
> many debris fields as possible.

Variations on the theme have been suggested before, like large ceramic
fabric disks.

> While probably not able to capture
> most debris, one or more collisions could reduce their kinetic energy
> substantially to aid quicker reentry. Any foam shrapnel produced
> should be relatively harmless and decay very quickly.

I'm not sure I'd trust the foam to be "harmless." The shuttle has had
some divots blown out of its windows by paint chips.

On the other hand, if there's any solid substance with a chance of
being
harmless in orbital impacts, it's aerogel. So if it passes muster in
simulations and tests, it'd be the material for these debris sweepers.

> I can't imagine any process that could create kilometre-scale
> aerogels on Earth, let alone in-situ!

Probably something involving an inflateable mold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_satellite

Mike Miller
Hipupchuck - 11 May 2009 17:07 GMT
Snip.

All you need is a satellite with a targeting laser blaster on it. Have
it seek and disintegrate space junk or slow it down so it falls to earth.
Andy Lee Robinson - 03 Jun 2009 14:12 GMT
> Snip.
>
> All you need is a satellite with a targeting laser blaster on it. Have
> it seek and disintegrate space junk or slow it down so it falls to earth.

Nice idea.. but difficult.. molten space junk is still space junk, and
fragments of space junk is yet more space junk, and may even take
longer to decay if cross-sectional area decreases, eg, a breaking up a
flat panel into tiny fragments.
If a laser could vapourise or plasmarise a target, then it could be
useful, but have watch out for anything else in its path. Boiling
random patches of ocean might not be popular!
Perhaps solar storms could be seeded to increase atmospheric drag or
solar pressure?

Cheers,
Andy.
Alain Fournier - 13 Jun 2009 04:00 GMT
>>Snip.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> longer to decay if cross-sectional area decreases, eg, a breaking up a
> flat panel into tiny fragments.

Breaking up a flat panel into tiny fragments won't prolong the orbital
life of the pieces. You could have part of the space junk stay up longer
by cutting off pieces with lower mass to cross-sectional area ratio. For
instance if you cut off solar arrays to a satellite, the solar arrays
will de-orbit relatively fast and the rest of the satellite will be up
there longer. It isn't obvious to me what is best, having a smaller
satellite (e.g. satellite without solar arrays) staying up there longer
or a larger satellite coming down faster, but I would think that in most
cases you are better off leaving the solar arrays on the satellite so
it deorbits faster.

For "normal" objects, you can't prolong the life of a satellite by
cutting it into pieces. If you increase the mass to cross-sectional area
ratio by cutting the thing you didn't do it by increasing the mass, so
you have to do it by reducing the cross-sectional area. Normally, you
don't reduce the cross-sectional area by cutting something up, unless
you can somehow stack the pieces. That could happen for some objects
for instance if you have an umbrella which is open but spring loaded to
close, if you cut of a piece that lets it close, you can reduce the
cross-sectional area.

Alain Fournier
earlcolby.pottinger@sympatico.ca - 26 May 2009 00:15 GMT
> My idea would be to scale-up Stardust's aerogel capture system and
> deploy kilometre-sized megafoams in orbits designed to intersect as
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> any process that could create kilometre-scale aerogels on Earth, let
> alone in-situ!

Too late, that was already suggested in a story published in Analog
Science Fiction & Science Fact.

             Earl Colby Pottinger
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.