Discussion on:

Space junk: Worse than you think (pictures)

So did our detection systems get remarkably better around 2007, or did ET toss his garbage out the airlock while doing a fly-by??


Ohh.... blame the Chinese for blowing up one of their satellites.

BTW: While I recognize (and hope everyone else does as well) that some of the suggestions and comments here are intended to be anectodal and (I HOPE) really don't need the lessons in physics to explain why big fishing nets will be useless against micro-particles travelling so fast that they can puncture metal [ but just in case: a) they'll pass though the gaps in the net, and b) if they manage to hit part of the netting they'll just puncture right through, make more debris, and keep on going] BUT...

Just for fun... (and as an exercise for your kids) If we consider low earth orbit to be 500 miles and lower, figure out how big of a "net" you would need to launch to be able to adequately cover that much area. For bonus points, figure out how much it would weigh.

(Consider that the oversized dry-cleaner's garment bag that took "Fearless Felix" up to 24 miles weighed in at over 4000 pounds empty.)

Well, a net isn't really accurate, a net is just string with holes, the holes are to allow water and air through, two things that aren't in space. Instead you would need something like that stuff in bullet proof jackets to catch the objects.

As for size, big yes, but if there is enough time and it can reposition, it could be smaller.
500 miles? I check online, it seems people consider space to be between 62 and 220 mile. Apparently the space station is about 220 miles away. So if you wanted to catch debris that could be a danger, a decent guess could be the 158 miles of space.
at 220 miles the space station orbits completely every 92 minutes. A "net" we could assume would travel the same speed at the high orbit, and faster at the low orbit (or it would fall).
Assume we had a "net" that was about a square 1/4 mile in size (Dunno who we would get it up there) .

That should be enough information to calculate, but my brain just stalled, someone else do it please.

Do you really think a "net" would serve the purpose? You ARE right that the upper and lower bounds of a "net" would HAVE to travel at differential velocities to remain in orbit (invalidating the concept at one go), but you are SO dead wrong about "space" stretching "between 62 and 220 miles."

FYI, if you DID put up a net that stretched from a high to a low orbit, it would soon also "autorotate" due to the differential orbital velocities, and unless it were magnetic or some such, it would spill its cargo with every spin.

FYI2, This has been a concern for NASA for quite a while, and a "net" was one of the first concepts they realized would not work.

it up and into the cargo bay. Hell, the shuttle crews used to do that to repair the satellites.

That every mission targeting such a satellite catch took months of planning to get the shuttle in the right place at the right time?

Changes in orbit are EXPENSIVE in time and fuel at least, and always have to end with the shuttle in position to de-orbit. All that, times 500,000 old bolts and hatch-covers? Excuse me?

Wait a minute! That graph correlates to the graphs on global warming - did anyone think to show this to Al Gore?

Saw an interesting article about little autonomous "sweeper" robots that they are working on for this. They carry packs of small "parachutes" just a foot or two across. They seek out debris and sneak over and attach one or more little parachute onto it. The solar winds slow the junk down over a number of weeks enough that it eventually falls out of orbit. When they run out of chutes the robots will then fly home to the IIS for a refill on their parachutes and are sent back out again to keep up the good work. Not in space yet but I think it is a great idea.

I love how the ruler used in image 15 is proudly emblazoned with "Made in Japan".
Must be a classic from NASA's early days.

Space junk is clearly due to Global Warming.
I blame Al Gore.

If Al Gore had only carried his own state of Tennessee in 2000, then he would have been able to push his Global Warming agenda thru earlier and we would not be dealing with the problem of Space Junk now. We would have bigger problems now.

The human race should outlaw the burning of any and all Hydro-Carbon.
That should include carbohydrates, Lo-Carb diet is the way to go!

The human race should outlaw the burning of any and all Hydro-Carbon.

Yes, let's make carbon combustion illegal. That would eliminate burning anything while also outlawing the internal processes that keep almost all living things on Earth alive.

NT2

The problem with gathering the debris is the speeds of impact.
You would be better off with a bed of Gel to slow them when passing through, then they might de-orbit. These small stuff will burn up on re-entry.
Large items will need to be retrieved with a maneuvering craft to bring them in on controlled paths to avoid populated areas. Large/Dense items WILL make it to the ground.

I had thought many of the birds up there were already set up to slide off into an orbit that would burn them up. Hmmm. Wonder where the Satcom birds are now, or the Galaxy bird that went dark a couple of years ago... They were moved out of their slot to move in something else that worked, you'd think they had fuel enough to burn them or bounce them out into space...
point being, they were left there on purpose. Why? just so we'd know where they *are*...?

It's funny to think who is responsible for this junk, not like there is anyone to police the Earth's orbit and issue fines for inappropriate disposal of waste.

nt

they are already trying to take control of the Internet. A disaster waiting to happen.

Who wants to hook up the trailer to the space ship and go space scrap metal junkin? LOL

We humans don't seem to be able to keep any of our "spaces" clean!~! We've dirtied the Earth, why not fill space up too? Shameful display of technological genious in my opinion!

I have two junk drawers that collect anything and everything. I can donate them to NASA for their next trip and they can set them loose.

After I read the comment stating we should set the space junk into a deteriorating orbit, eventually having it land in the ocean, I realized the author must have meant the entire post, title included, to be a joke.

Assuming your bio is true, I would think you would KNOW: It's JUNK! We don't have control over most of it (if we have control over any of it).

(You DID mean the whole deteriorating orbit as a joke, right? We can't control junk)

the crew of a manned craft. The small stuff would burn up on re-entry. The big stuff would be mostly burnt up by re-entry with a bit splashing down.

I still think the best idea would be to pack it into a cargo bay and bring it back to auction off at a profit as collectors items.

How will the visitors get through when they come back?

nt

What you don't realize is that more space junk is a "GOOD" thing. It takes a super large amount of energy to overcome our gravity well every time we want to leave home.
With enough junk in orbit, we can create more jobs for all of those out of work astronauts. We can mine the junk, set up orbiting heavy industries (such as steel mills), and manufacture new space vehicles while in orbit.
Since "we" will already be in orbit, think how much less energy needs to then be used for deep space exploration!
Golly, we can then go out and mine the asteroids, scoop gas from the giant planets (meaning we need less gas from our politicians), set sail in the solar wind, ........ Where will it end?

This is not a photo. It is a child's depiction. Look at the "picture." Do you see buildings? No? Why? Because they are too small! Even if you levitated all the buildings in the world up into space, you STILL could not see them because they would STILL be too small. So, for this "picture" to be real, the space junk would have to be 400 quadrilion times larger [and about as numerous] than all the buildings in the world for this "picture" to be correct!
Cheeze Louise! No wonder our country is in the shape its in!!

Use the darn things for laser gun target practice. Hit them at the correct angle and force them to fall, burning up in the atmosphere.

Or is this picture inclusive of functioning debris (aka satelites)? It would be nice to see a color break up of junk to devices pictoral. Red for junk and blue for functioning devices. It would also be good to see this diagram splayed so we can see the planet not just this side. Is it worse or better on this side of heaven?

Also I wonder how much shrapnel was created with China's demonstration of being able to "shoot down" satelites.

Ever since we decided to live in packs, we've become the ultimate hoarders and procrastinators. We're supposed to be the most intelligent beings on this planet and we're the ones who can't seem to see past our own noses.

Borrow against future revenue? Sure! Figure out what to do with nuclear waste later? Sure! Dump plastics and toxic stuff into the ground till later? Sure! Shoot expensive junk into space and deal with it another time? Sure!

Wait, I think I see a pattern developing...

It might have been so simple to have addressed this issue before it got out of hand!

The surface of the Earth isn't enough to the human being! The man, The Herald of the Junk!!

Why not have a company retrieve the satellites by attaching small to medium sized rockets to force rentry and have the items burn up on rentry. They could be scooped up by a huge carbon fibre net and forced into rentry.

Attach the rockets with magnets or glue. Have the rockets be controlled using remote control.

The problem is not that the junk is out there, it is that it is spread out all over the place and causing a collision hazard. Repairing or gutting and re-purposing old satellites in place and getting them back into their positions after having drifted (like NASA was dong with the shuttle) would help, but for the other large junk like boosters and stuff it would help to push it together into more easily avoided and tracked clumps. Remote junk wrangler robots with electric or nuclear drives could do the job and the materials that cost so much to boost into orbit in the first place could be reused for making other stuff like orbit-launched space probes (only the lighter modern components would have to be sent up with other space station supplies), space station parts, and whatever else might be needed.

There was talk long ago about using old boosters as micro-meteor shields for stations with a lot of EVA going on for one thing by clustering them in the right directions (I have no idea if that is really practical though). With the heat and electricity (via solar panels or other techniques) available from the sun reforging metals should not be a big problem so use could be made of the junk in making new parts taking advantage of the zero-g environment too.

Those who are responsible for it - mainly the US , Europe and Russia will ask the late comers to space like India, brazil and others to pay for the cleanup, and if they dont, their satellites will properly be the first to crash into this space junk

The human intellect has achieved greater heights.

hickoryshirt:
I agree..............

Why do the NASA and other space cadets use rulers made in Japan?