Space Junk

[Strange]

"Stick to the atmosphere"

[fredreload]

"Stick to the atmosphere"

It's small enough to float somewhere lol, well I'm not sure what's inside a satellite so, just speculation

[Klaynos]

A high altitude balloon?

[Phi for All]

Not yet, this is why I have posted inside of the speculations page, however is not the point of creating a device that can collect space debris to actually get in the way of other orbiters. This would be the main methodology for collecting spacial debris, because it being in a sort of stationary no orbiting location then would not the actual orbiting debris run into it, making the devices job a lot more simplistic, all be it implausible at this current instance.

 

The junk is orbiting at around 17,500 mph (28,000+ kph). It would be pointless to design a collector that had to snag its targets from a standstill when we can more easily match the orbits and remove much of the high-speed dangers. Right now the technology is leaning towards a drone booster rocket that can attach itself to a piece of debris and move it into the atmosphere if it's small enough, or out towards the sun if it's too big to burn up in re-entry.

[NEXT]

Yes, however the amount of time and precision it would take to match a man made space debris would would be respectively troublesome. Not to mention factoring in the amount of mass loss due to both launch and communication failures would could quite possibly cause the space debris satellite to in itself become space debris. This however would also occur with the solution I produced and your idea (Phi for All) would have a greater reduction in cost.

 

The Only difference is that in order to collect multiple man made space junk from orbit using the drone collection suggestion would cause either a large demand in having multiple drones all have there own respective orbits in order to collect individual space debris, or having a single space collector have to constantly change its respective orbital pattern just to collect even more space junk which would require a large amount of fuel. Even though this idea is the most practical and reliable, it falters in respect to the large use of resources per space junk collection.

 

In respect to the solution that I proposed, the system would only need to move along a singe axis plane for the collection of average orbits ( Described in image post above ) This would reduce the need for having multiple materials being sent out into space, and if there were a communication error then the system is already in a collision course with earth so after collection it can either burn up within the atmosphere or it could simply land and launch again using the same amount of respective resources.

 

One of the main issues that I see which puts my idea at fault is that whenever a high velocity object impacts the space debris collection system, it would go from its current non-orbital velocity to on that is equivalent to that of the impact due to momentum conservation.

[Phi for All]

Yes, however the amount of time and precision it would take to match a man made space debris would would be respectively troublesome. Not to mention factoring in the amount of mass loss due to both launch and communication failures would could quite possibly cause the space debris satellite to in itself become space debris. This however would also occur with the solution I produced and your idea (Phi for All) would have a greater reduction in cost.

 

How exactly are we losing mass to "both launch and communication failures"? Did we lose the radio somehow? Why are you even mentioning failures at this point, since any solution is going to be subject to them?

 

The Only difference is that in order to collect multiple man made space junk from orbit using the drone collection suggestion would cause either a large demand in having multiple drones all have there own respective orbits in order to collect individual space debris, or having a single space collector have to constantly change its respective orbital pattern just to collect even more space junk which would require a large amount of fuel. Even though this idea is the most practical and reliable, it falters in respect to the large use of resources per space junk collection.

 

The drones move the debris once they've attached themselves. They don't stay in orbit, they move either out towards the sun or inwards towards the atmosphere.

 

Actually, for the small stuff, the ESA has a chute that can be attached that causes enough drag to destabilize an orbit so the debris falls into the atmosphere to burn up.

 

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technology/Clean_Space/How_to_catch_a_satellite

 

Also, here's a little toy from some friends of mine, showing all the satellites and all the junk in a nifty 3D simulation:

http://stuffin.space/

[NEXT]

Thank you for the response Phi for all, in my response toward you previous comment I held the assumption that it would become clear that once the spacial debris collection system where to actually catch up with a man made orbiting body it would then follow the procedure of burning up with in our upper atmosphere. I am sorry that I did not fully elaborate upon this.

 

Now in respect toward the spacial drone idea, to answer your first question, I was only stating that with common missions such as the collection of space junk that the amount of resources required to preform orbital spacial debris collection would be great, and that IF by any change something unintended were to happen such as the device losing all communications with where it were to be based, or it had any on board issues with a secondary orbital body effecting a mechanical component like a un-documented spacial debris hitting a key thrust-er, knocking it of ( A piece of the actual ship itself and not a radio ) then it would add to the already cluttered spacial debris field. Also thank you for the link it was amazing to have a visual and kinetic representation of the amount of spacial debris that is already out there. However if you where not to use something that is not already orbiting the earth, something that had a sustainable non-orbital trajectory ( Please correct if term used in correctly ) the it would not matter if secondary materials where to cause on board issues. It would would already have a non-orbital path directed straight at the earth.

 

Finally, by me considering any and all problems at the point of actually producing a hypothesis upon spacial debris collection I am allowing myself to consider any and all possibilities that may occur. If you where to create a system that would seem at the time perfect and evolve with it from there then IF an issues comes later down the road with the design then it will become to late to fix it. Also even though all solutions are subject to failures that could cause issues, they each will have there own RESPECTIVE issues. It is from these respective issues that a designer must keep in mind so that he can " choose the better of the greater evils."

[Phi for All]

There is simply no need to go to the expense of trying to force a satellite to hover in place. There are no benefits gained by it, since it will make snagging space debris several orders of magnitude more difficult, expensive, and dangerous. And you still didn't explain your "losing mass" objection, I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

You're starting to sound a bit like a word-salad. I have no idea why you're bringing up scenarios at this point about communication problems, and "a secondary orbital body effecting a mechanical component like a un-documented spacial debris hitting a key thrust-er", since you don't offer a reason why the drones are especially susceptible to these problems where other solutions are not.

 

I think you're over-complicating your message, and making it more difficult to understand.