DailyDirt: Who's Going To Clean Up All The Space Junk?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Mon, Jul 2nd 2012 5:00pm — Michael Ho

Putting satellites and spacecraft into low earth orbit is getting easier and less expensive all the time, but that also means we're possibly creating even more orbiting space junk around our planet -- without any way to remove this garbage. Man-made space debris is already a problem, and as we shoot more stuff up into space, it could become an even bigger problem. There are at least a few folks who are concerned about space pollution, but there aren't that many workable solutions (yet).

DARPA is working on a project called Phoenix which aims to create new satellites that can cannibalize older satellites in orbit for parts. DARPA wants to demonstrate robotic satellites that can salvage reusable parts such as antennas from obsolete satellites in geosynchronous orbit, but there are quite a few technological and logistical hurdles to overcome. [url]
China's space program has achieved several significant milestones, but its anti-satellite capabilities could turn low earth orbit into an unusable space junkyard. In 2007, China shot down one of its own weather satellites and created a cloud of space debris. [url]
One proposal to reduce space debris in low earth orbit involves deploying tons of micron-scale tungsten dust in space -- which would collide with other debris and slow down the space junk so that it burns up in the upper atmosphere. About 100 tons of cosmic dust from micrometeorites gets captured by Earth's gravity on a daily basis, but it's too spread out to have a significant effect on man-made space junk. Unfortunately, deploying 40 tons of man-made tungsten dust, at about $1000 per pound, is a fairly expensive mission... [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: china, low earth orbit, micrometeorites, phoenix, satellites, space, space junk, tungsten
Companies: darpa

13 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2012 @ 5:19pm

On 3, instead of adding more debris via tungsten, could they use HAARP to push the ionosphere out so that the junk burns up in the upper atmosphere? At least it could get the low hanging [junk].
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 2 Jul 2012 @ 5:53pm

There have been a few ideas on how to deal with the problem but very little funding. I ran across this the other day.
http://www.space.com/11157-nasa-lasers-shooting-space-junk.html

Looks cool, but it doesn't seem to be a long term solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scott Gardner (profile), 2 Jul 2012 @ 6:01pm

It's not entirely true that there's "no way to remove this garbage". Not every satellite that goes into orbit is destined to become space junk occupying a desirable orbital slot.

If a satellite still has fuel left at the end of its service life, it can be slowed down in a controlled manner so that it de-orbits at the time and place of our choosing. Likewise, satellites up in geosynchronous orbits can have their orbits adjusted to move them even further outward into a super-synchronous "graveyard" orbit, where there aren't any operational satellites and collisions aren't a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 3 Jul 2012 @ 5:18am
  
  Re:
  De-orbit is a viable solution for operational satellites, although it is not always employed or even available as an option when a satellite is at or near end of life.
  
  Russian and US satellites collide
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7885051.stm
  
  Short of escape velocity, increasing the orbit is not a long term solution as the orbit will decay.
  
  Proper procedures for future operations would be a step in the right direction, however there is still a lot of junk in orbit which will cause problems.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2 Jul 2012 @ 6:16pm

Aerogel?
Aerogel seems to be good at mopping up small, high-speed particles. I wonder how expensive it is to make? And how thick it needs to be to be effective? Could we make a kilometre-wide sheet and just leave it in a suitable orbit for a few years�would that help clean things up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2012 @ 6:37pm

DARPA is working on a project called Phoenix which aims to create new satellites that can cannibalize older satellites in orbit for parts.
Why would you make a project like that and not call it "Nomad"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2012 @ 9:09pm

I have an idea, make a Space Debris Section on the ISS e and then make a ship (model DS-12) called "Toy Box" and let it's crew do the work of salvaging or sendind the trash back to earth to be burned on the reentry.

If got the reference, +10 000 internets for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Jul 2012 @ 9:58pm

deploying 40 tons of man-made tungsten dust,

Errr. So what stops this from hitting all the satellites and stuff that we want to keep working? Being effectively sandblasted in space sounds like a bad thing for delicate antenna and other sensitive instruments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael Ho (profile), 3 Jul 2012 @ 12:00am
  
  Re:
  I think the idea is that the tungsten dust wouldn't have enough momentum to slow down large, intact satellites. But the dust would have a significant effect on smaller pieces of debris.
  
  Getting the dust in the right orbit is obviously important -- and presumably no one would add the dust in the path of a super-sensitive satellite... (or maybe they would if it was an effective anti-satellite weapon).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jakerome (profile), 3 Jul 2012 @ 12:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    Not quite. It will slow down everything. I suppose the likelihood of a collision with the dust (LoC) would vary in in proportion (C) to some characteristic length (D). My guess is:
    
    D^2 < C*LoC
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jakerome (profile), 3 Jul 2012 @ 9:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Techdirt ate the rest of my post! Regardless, while the collisions with smaller debris may occur with a higher frequency than more massive objects on a per gram basis, all objects will be effected. But if it knocks down debris & satellites in 20 years instead of 100, that may be a very sensible solution to clearing lower earth orbit with minimal impact on operations.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jakerome (profile), 2 Jul 2012 @ 11:55pm

Space budgets...
aren't like normal budgets. $80 million (40 tons at $1000/pound) is cheap, really, and pays off by avoiding even one lost satellite. The downside is that EVERY low-earth satellite would be slowed by this debris, leading to shorter lifespans for all low earth satellites. That's because fuel is needed to keep the satellite from slowing too much, and running out of fuel is often the life-limiting factor for satellites. It might be interesting as a 1-off, since there's tons (literally) of uncontrolled space debris largely from the early years of space programs when there was less concern about junk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jul 2012 @ 5:02pm

Who's going to clean up all the space junk?
Commander Quark and the valiant crew of his United Galaxy Sanitation Patrol ship, that's who!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]