ExtremeTech has an article suggesting the International Space Station may add a Laser "CAN-non" in coming years.
The business end of the proposed laser system would be a Coherent Amplification Network (CAN) laser that can focus a single powerful beam on a piece of debris. The laser would vaporize the surface of the target, causing a plume of plasma to push the object away from the station and toward the atmosphere.
This is still just a proposal, but a test version of the laser might be deployed to the station in a few years.
The Extreme Universe Space Observatory (EUSO) is scheduled to be installed on Japan's ISS module in 2017. This is not by design a space-junk-killing piece of equipment. It's intended to monitor the atmosphere for ultraviolet emissions caused by cosmic rays.
However it might serve as an experimental platform for testing (at much lower power) the capability of slight deflections of orbiting space junk.
We discussed the general problem of space junk here on Soylent News at the beginning of the month.
Related Stories
http://theconversation.com/space-debris-what-can-we-do-with-unwanted-satellites-40736
There are thousands of satellites in Earth orbit, of varying age and usefulness. At some point they reach the end of their lives, at which point they become floating junk. What do we do with them then?
Most satellites are not designed with the end of their life in mind. But some are designed to be serviced, such as the Hubble Space Telescope, which as part of its final service was modified to include a soft capture mechanism. This is an interface designed to allow a future robotic spacecraft to attach itself and guide the telescope to safe disposal through burn-up in the Earth’s atmosphere once its operational life has ended.
Thinking about methods to retire satellites is important, because without proper disposal they become another source of space debris – fragments of old spacecraft, satellites and rockets now orbiting Earth at thousands of miles per hour. These fragments travel so fast that even a piece the size of a coin has enough energy to disable a whole satellite. There are well over 100,000 pieces this size or larger already orbiting Earth, never mind much larger items – for example the Progress unmanned cargo module, which Russian Space Agency mission controllers have lost control of and which will orbit progressively lower until it burns up in Earth’s atmosphere.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19 2015, @10:04AM
What would be the range of such a system? Could it in principle also be used as anti-satellite weapon (either pushing the satellite out of their correct orbit, or vaporizing important parts of their instrumentation; possibly both)?
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Balderdash on Tuesday May 19 2015, @02:46PM
Ahm firin' mah lazorz!
I browse at -1. Free and open discourse requires consideration and review of all attempts at participation.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday May 19 2015, @04:21PM
If this gets into KSP it would have to be a mod; I doubt it would become cannon any time soon.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19 2015, @06:57PM
i'm pretty sure anything in space could function as an anti-satellite weapon. no sense worrying about that. what you should be worrying about is your dependence on satellites and how easily they can be taken down...and how money/time hard they are to get back up.
a nations infrastructure should rely on dirigibles instead of satellites. satellites should be for spying and deep space comms.
(Score: 3, Funny) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday May 19 2015, @10:16AM
Godammit. It's been nearly twenty years, but I still can't see / hear the word 'laser' without mentally adding finger quotes and Dr Evil's voice. I think I need professional help. In my defence, TFA does sound kind of bond-villainesque.
Also: Magma.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday May 19 2015, @11:04AM
Perhaps you were thinking on Hugo Drax and his Moonraker [wikipedia.org] space station equipped with nerve gas and laser weapons.. ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19 2015, @11:37AM
Or even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pink_Panther_Strikes_Again [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Funny) by Thexalon on Tuesday May 19 2015, @01:42PM
At the very least, I'm reasonably certain this laser needs to have a speaker that makes it go "pew pew pew" whenever somebody is firing it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday May 19 2015, @07:33PM
It would only be "bond-villainesque" if it was pointed TOWARD the ISS
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19 2015, @10:24AM
...since the russians have prolly got plans for all sorts of weapons for their post-ISS station, including lasers, missiles, nukes, gatling guns, rail guns, flamethrowers, etc.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday May 19 2015, @03:45PM
I'd go with cannons since they have actual experience with putting them on stations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_3#On-board_gun [wikipedia.org]
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by engblom on Tuesday May 19 2015, @11:31AM
Each time the laser solution has been brought up I wonder to what degree the state of aggregation is considered. If you vaporize something, it well eventually become solid again. How do you clean up those?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19 2015, @12:13PM
Read the summary more carefully: The evaporation doesn't destroy the debris, but it gives it thrust towards the atmosphere. Entry into the atmosphere will destroy it then.
(Score: 2) by engblom on Tuesday May 19 2015, @12:34PM
I fully know the whole piece of junk does not evaporate, and no I did not misread the summary. The piece of junk gets trust from the vaporizing a small part of the piece. That vapor might stay in space for quite long time. I can imagine those vapors, once solid again will be highly abrasive for high speed satellites and other space equipment.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by iwoloschin on Tuesday May 19 2015, @12:48PM
If the vaporized bits are small enough, they might not be of any harm. A single atom smashing into a plate of steel/aluminum/titanium/etc probably won't hurt it much. A gram of atoms is likely a problem though. So the question is really how well is it vaporized, and how easy would it be to detect and fire again on the smaller bits?
(Score: 2) by sudo rm -rf on Tuesday May 19 2015, @01:39PM
Well, one could start training here [atari.com]
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday May 19 2015, @02:13PM
I think the plan is to get the things to thrust towards the earth. Using the laser to vaporize a bit on one side causes it to become a tiny little rocket for a moment. If you get it to thrust towards the earth. then on the next orbit it will be below you.
Now, this might not help for something that is in a highly elliptical orbit, since its apogee would still be above you. Also a problem for things that are spinning. But if you can get it to dip further into the atmosphere, the Earth will drag it in. My guess is this thing would not make the objects noticeably smaller, so tracking on the next orbit isn't an issue.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Tuesday May 19 2015, @06:24PM
You merely try to get it to thrust against the direction of travel.
Orbital mechanics will handle the rest.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday May 20 2015, @09:30PM
Ahh yes, you are absolutely correct, It is all a matter of velocity, not direction. I should know better.
Though I wonder how this lets you deal with debris if you are the one catching up to the debris when it crosses your orbit. I suppose in that situation the space station or craft with the laser also has it's own propulsion and would perform a maneuver to avoid. Once it passes the debris by, it can pew pew it with the laser to get the debris to deorbit.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday May 19 2015, @04:18PM
Pretty sure the vapor would be akin to RCS thruster exaust. Light and dispersed.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by forkazoo on Tuesday May 19 2015, @05:46PM
The laser also imparts some kinetic energy directly, so some of the vapor is being pushed out of orbit as well, rather than staying in orbit. The vapor particles will also be heading in fairly random directions, so a lot of it that gets pushed out will now be in a weird highly eccentric orbit that may be atmosphere-intersecting anyway. They rest will mostly diffuse to the point where the density isn't appreciable higher that space near earth to start with, or get swept away by solar wind. The exact behavior will depend on the specific orbit and composition of the satellite being shot at, nature of the shooting, relative orientations of pew pew laser and target, etc. I'm sure they'll run many simulations on any specific proposed shootdowns, and avoid anything they aren't very confident is a good idea.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday May 19 2015, @06:22PM
I fully know the whole piece of junk does not evaporate, and no I did not misread the summary.
I suggest you DID misread the summary.
causing a plume of plasma
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19 2015, @01:19PM
So what is the projectile? Is my flashlight a cannon? Certainly my keychain laser pointer must be. Maybe they should have gone all the way for click-bait headlines and called it a "photon torpedo."
(Score: 3, Informative) by iwoloschin on Tuesday May 19 2015, @02:28PM
The projectile is photons. Unless you're measuring them as waves, in which case it's more like one of those air cannon things that we all use to knock papers off our co-workers' desks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19 2015, @02:48PM
Of course a laser is the most wave-like light you can have (having well-defined phase and not well defined particle number).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19 2015, @03:40PM
You could easily measure the number of photons with a sensitive detector that clicks once for every photon.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19 2015, @06:29PM
High degree of coherence doesn't make it any more wave-like then if all your waves had random phase.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19 2015, @06:20PM
I see. So my laser pointer or flashlight IS a cannon then.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday May 19 2015, @07:39PM
Mr. Dick Chenery says:
can·non
ˈkanən/
noun
noun: cannon; plural noun: cannons; noun: cannon bit; plural noun: cannon bits
1.
a large, heavy piece of artillery, typically mounted on wheels, formerly used in warfare.
Except for not having wheels, I think it qualifies for the term, while your air gun does not.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org