Author Topic: Orbital Debris problem (Read 71914 times)

Rik ISS-fan · « **on:** 08/16/2018 08:44 pm »

I couldn't find a topic about this. So I created one, (mods; please move this post if there is a topic.)
I stumbled upon a Studium Genarale Delft talk about this topic.

I think it's a nice introduction into the SpaceDebris problem topic. The lectures are in English by Dutch people, so the language isn't perfect. There were four short lectures:
1) ESA e.Deorbit; Michel van Pelt (Development of active debris removal)
2) Space Law; Tanja Masson-Zwaan, Leiden University
3) Interaction of spaceobjects with the Atmosphere; Eelco Doornbos, TU Delft
4) first sketches of Space Debris project; Studio Roosegaarde

Let's use this topic for informative video's about the space debris topic, and to discuss the topic.

ZachF · « **Reply #1 on:** 08/17/2018 02:27 pm »

I was thinking about this the other day...

Would a Casaba howitzer (nuclear shape charge) be a good debris cloud cleaning device?

(Provided you could control collateral damage)

I know this idea has a high chance of being stupid, so don't be afraid to hold back. (lol)

DanielGrachev · « **Reply #2 on:** 08/17/2018 02:55 pm »

Hey! I'm glad you created this topic since the space debris problem is widely discussed now.

Several professors from my university's department of theoretical mechanics trying to solve this problem. But the complex and expensive systems are required for that. Space debris isn't uniform in it's structure, size, orbital characteristics, linear and angular velocities. That's make the problem almost unsolvable in one particular mission.

My opinion follows. The space debris removing campaign will be the most expensive and the most ambitious in the whole history of space exploration. We need to design different "scavengers" for the different type of debris: from large communications satellites in geostationary orbit to the small debris of FY-1C in LEO -- it's different tasks to solve.

Darren_Hensley · « **Reply #3 on:** 08/17/2018 04:10 pm »

None of this discussion matters. Cost drives what we do, and we are still in the "lets just get it up there so it can do it's mission, and we will worry about the debris latter." mode. Until LAW forces us to create low cost and viable solutions space debris will never get priority of funds and priority of launches.

By all means show us your possible solutions to all, some, or one solution, but unless you are willing to fund it and push it to the top, it will never be a world issue we need to solve right now. Even a disaster would have little impact.

The alternative is just not heavy enough a thought, to force world space powers to take action. Sorry but reality sucks.

At least some commercial ventures are doing their part to reduce or eliminate putting additional debris into orbit.

Soapbox dismounted.

Rik ISS-fan · « **Reply #4 on:** 08/17/2018 04:50 pm »

My view is the following:
The easiest and first thing that has to be done is stopping the increase of non-functional space objects. (in LEO)
This has two implications:
1) (LEO/SSO) Satelites have to be deorbited while still fuctional at the end of their missions.
2) Upperstages have to be actively be deorbited. (I think this applies to all orbits LEO, MEO, GEO, GTO & HEO.)
I think the below the ISS; auto decay orbits can be excluded from this because all satellites there will decay within a couple of years.
Secondly all satellites and objects have to be track-able. AFAIK this means that 1P pocketcubes aren't allowed to be launched. The smallest sat.size will be the 2P pocketcube; 1/4U cubesat.

The third thing that has to happen is preventing collisions. Full non-functional satellites are much better than a cloud of satellite parts. I think ESA is giving a good example by trying to deorbit the non-functional Envisat (8mT in SSO). Possibly another target for ESA would be the active removal of GEOS-1 (GTO orbit).
I think ESA/ Europe has a easy job, because they haven't launched that many satellites. Nasa/USA and Russia have a far more difficult job, because they launched a lot more.

I think the SpaceLaw part of the talk was very interesting. A state is always responsible for what happens with the launchers (stages) and satellites they have launched or allowed to launch.
Are we going to a period where compensation has to be payed for each and every DAM (Debris Avoidance Maneuver) that has to be executed? Most probably not, but it does help so stimulate active object removal.

Removing the small trackable objects will be fare more difficult than removing complete satellites. There are a lot of risks involved with removal attempts. In the end a good intended removal attempt might worsen the situation.
I agree getting the orbital debris situation under control might be one of the most difficult space accomplishments.

BrinaLowe · « **Reply #5 on:** 09/15/2018 04:20 pm »

This problem relating to space junk is a crucial and a very dangerous problem. Our future generations are gonna at sometime experience falling space debris and that would a catastrophical problem.

Eric Hedman · « **Reply #6 on:** 09/30/2018 04:52 am »

NASA has done a study on large constellations of satellites and the risk they pose of creating Orbital Debris. The Study is in the latest NASA Quarterly Orbital Debris News:

https://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/quarterly-news/pdfs/odqnv22i3.pdf

There is an article on the risk in the Verge:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/28/17906158/nasa-spacex-oneweb-satellite-large-constellations-orbital-debris

speedevil · « **Reply #7 on:** 09/30/2018 11:56 am »

Quote from: Eric Hedman on 09/30/2018 04:52 am

NASA has done a study on large constellations of satellites and the risk they pose of creating Orbital Debris. The Study is in the latest NASA Quarterly Orbital Debris News:

https://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/quarterly-news/pdfs/odqnv22i3.pdf

It would be interesting to see further work - which this doesn't cover (other than 'explosions are bad') - on mitigation strategies in the context of constellations.
What is the penalty (if any) of requiring no hypergolics, or tanks pressurised to >10PSI
Similarly, is it possible to add debris mitigation to the design in such a manner that the total particle flux emitted from impacts is less harmful than before the impact?
(For a range of particle sizes, hitting a plastic film will totally vaporise them, converting them from dangerous to harmless).

OV135 · « **Reply #8 on:** 10/03/2018 11:47 pm »

There is a law about touching another nations space hardware without permission could be seen as an act of war by the other party. Maybe the UN can draft something as space debris is something all nations have to deal with as it effects all of us. Gravity just shows worst case scenario run amok.

I would say to clean up LEO of junk would make a new industry for recycling precious metals. It also would maybe, just maybe help with resources of metal that can be recycled for use- just like we do on Earth.

A real example of this is seen in Kazakhstan where locals who live near the crash sites of the spent stages of the Semyorka R7 Soyuz rocket go into the fields and scrap these used rocket pieces and recycle the materials of the rocket parts to get money. It's become it's own business and easy money for locals. Just expand that concept to clean up Earth orbit. That's a lot of money waiting to be used, same with asteroid mining.

Who knows in future some of our new rockets may be built of scrap of old space junk sent back to Earth and recycled.

speedevil · « **Reply #9 on:** 10/04/2018 10:07 am »

Quote from: OV135 on 10/03/2018 11:47 pm

I would say to clean up LEO of junk would make a new industry for recycling precious metals. It also would maybe, just maybe help with resources of metal that can be recycled for use- just like we do on Earth.

Very little precious metal is used in many LEO satellites.
Exceptions would be some thruster bodies.
They are expensive because of the construction, not the materials.

Even that runs into unfortunate issues with the rocket equation - if fuel costs $1000/kg to get into orbit, and you spend 1000kg of that fuel to match orbits with a satellite with 3kg of precious metals, you have not profited.

nicp · « **Reply #10 on:** 10/04/2018 11:50 am »

Perhaps the value of orbital debris - even if it's only aluminium - is that it's already in orbit.
Free materials.

But it isn't free and would require some sophisticated stuff to make it useful. Not gonna happen in my humble opinion.

SWGlassPit · « **Reply #11 on:** 10/04/2018 04:18 pm »

Quote from: speedevil on 09/30/2018 11:56 am

Similarly, is it possible to add debris mitigation to the design in such a manner that the total particle flux emitted from impacts is less harmful than before the impact?
(For a range of particle sizes, hitting a plastic film will totally vaporise them, converting them from dangerous to harmless).

Those particle sizes for which this is true already weren't that dangerous to begin with. That's literally how the MMOD shields work -- a thin sacrificial layer to break up and vaporize the incoming particle and spread its energy over a wider area.

What macro-scale on-orbit impacts and breakups have a history of doing, on the other hand, is to take something that is big enough to track (i.e., big enough to see and dodge), and turn it into a cloud of debris just as lethal but now far more numerous and too small to see.

Hobbes-22 · « **Reply #12 on:** 10/04/2018 04:46 pm »

Quote from: Darren_Hensley on 08/17/2018 04:10 pm

None of this discussion matters. Cost drives what we do, and we are still in the "lets just get it up there so it can do it's mission, and we will worry about the debris latter." mode.

I think that's an unfair characterization. Pretty much every launcher in use today is designed to deorbit its stages after use, or passivate them if they're in too high an orbit. Satellites are passivated after use as well.

whitelancer64 · « **Reply #13 on:** 10/04/2018 04:48 pm »

Quote from: Rik ISS-fan on 08/17/2018 04:50 pm

My view is the following:
The easiest and first thing that has to be done is stopping the increase of non-functional space objects. (in LEO)
This has two implications:
1) (LEO/SSO) Satelites have to be deorbited while still fuctional at the end of their missions.
2) Upperstages have to be actively be deorbited. (I think this applies to all orbits LEO, MEO, GEO, GTO & HEO.)
I think the below the ISS; auto decay orbits can be excluded from this because all satellites there will decay within a couple of years.
Secondly all satellites and objects have to be track-able. AFAIK this means that 1P pocketcubes aren't allowed to be launched. The smallest sat.size will be the 2P pocketcube; 1/4U cubesat.

The third thing that has to happen is preventing collisions. Full non-functional satellites are much better than a cloud of satellite parts. I think ESA is giving a good example by trying to deorbit the non-functional Envisat (8mT in SSO). Possibly another target for ESA would be the active removal of GEOS-1 (GTO orbit).
I think ESA/ Europe has a easy job, because they haven't launched that many satellites. Nasa/USA and Russia have a far more difficult job, because they launched a lot more.

I think the SpaceLaw part of the talk was very interesting. A state is always responsible for what happens with the launchers (stages) and satellites they have launched or allowed to launch.
Are we going to a period where compensation has to be payed for each and every DAM (Debris Avoidance Maneuver) that has to be executed? Most probably not, but it does help so stimulate active object removal.

Removing the small trackable objects will be fare more difficult than removing complete satellites. There are a lot of risks involved with removal attempts. In the end a good intended removal attempt might worsen the situation.
I agree getting the orbital debris situation under control might be one of the most difficult space accomplishments.

There are already international agreements that stipulate satellites and upper stages must be either deorbited within 25 years or removed to a safe orbit and safed (fuel vented and batteries depleted, etc.) at EOL.

NASA has had policies for minimizing the creation of orbital debris for 30 years. In 2001, the US government adopted "orbital debris mitigation standard practices" which have been enforced for all US companies / launches since that time. These standard practices are the basis for the above-mentioned international agreements.

SciNews · « **Reply #14 on:** 10/09/2018 07:55 am »

Quote

The SPACE WASTE LAB PERFORMANCE visualises the space waste above your head real-time. SPACE WASTE LAB is the living lab which is supported by space experts such as ESA (European Space Agency), students, visitors, and the team of Studio Roosegaarde.

https://www.studioroosegaarde.net/project/space-waste-lab
SPACE WASTE LAB by Daan Roosegaarde

TrevorMonty · « **Reply #15 on:** 01/01/2020 03:03 pm »

Iridium would pay to deorbit its 30 defunct satellites — for the right price

https://spacenews.com/iridium-would-pay-to-deorbit-its-30-defunct-satellites-for-the-right-price/

"Desch, when asked by SpaceNews if Iridium would be willing to pay an active-debris-removal venture deorbit its remaining first-generation satellites, said it would “for a low enough cost.” He floated the idea of $10,000 per deorbit, but acknowledged that price would likely be far below what a debris-removal company could realistically offer. "

If debris removal space tug can refuel in orbit for $100-500kg then it might viable to deorbit LEO satellites for under $100k.
When SS starts flying it will have lots of spare payload capacity which could be filled with fuel. If fuel is specifically for debris removal then SpaceX may deliver it at reduced price.

SciNews · « **Reply #16 on:** 09/25/2020 09:15 am »

University of Warwick - Faint orbital debris that threatens satellites not being monitored closely enough, warn astronomers
"Survey of geosynchronous orbital debris led by University of Warwick found over 75% of debris detected could not be matched to known objects in public satellite catalogues"
https://warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/faint_orbital_debris
Advances in Space Research - DebrisWatch I: A survey of faint geosynchronous debris http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2020.08.008

SciNews · « **Reply #17 on:** 10/30/2020 06:09 am »

The Guardian - NorthStar satellite system to monitor threat of space debris
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/oct/29/northstar-satellite-system-monitor-threat-space-debris

Quote

The Canadian company NorthStar Earth and Space has contracted Thales Alenia Space to build the first three satellites of its Skylark space traffic monitoring system, with LeoStella, a Seattle-based firm, overseeing the final assembly. This will make NorthStar the first commercial company to monitor space traffic from space.

spacenut · « **Reply #18 on:** 10/30/2020 12:57 pm »

What about SEP tugs with large nets to capture debris and slow it down over an ocean to deorbit? It could capture it, slow down, drop it, and then speed back up to another orbital plane to capture something else. It would require frequent refueling.

SciNews · « **Reply #19 on:** 10/31/2020 12:30 pm »

Spaceflight Now - SpaceX executive pitches Starship for space debris cleanup
https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/10/27/spacex-executive-pitches-starship-for-space-debris-cleanup/
Gwynne Shotwell: "... it’s quite possible that we could leverage Starship to go to some of these dead rocket bodies — other people’s rocket’s, of course — basically pick up some of this junk in outer space.”