SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 2) by frojack on Sunday May 03 2015, @10:23PM
Yes, but we better use the term Orbital Quick Sand, because there are a lot of touchy people [wikipedia.org] out there.
The problem here is the only orbit that will bring you close enough to gather bits of space junk is the exact opposite orbit of said junk, which makes the closing speed horrific. You can't orbit hop up and down trying to rendezvous with every pyrotechnic bolt head or bag of poop.
This is also why there have been so few impacts, and why impacts that have happened are at relatively slow speeds. Every thing in the same orbit is going the same speed.
True, a more elliptical orbit or one at a slightly different angle would cross, and you might be able to use that to your advantage with you quick sand baby.
Considering all the brilliant minds in the space programs of several countries, I find it amazing nobody foresaw this problem.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:14AM
We are foreseeing the destruction of the planet. And still continue..
It's all about human behavior and organizational builtin properties. Most people perhaps isn't built to handle unforgiving environments.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:42AM
True, I'm sure the early pioneers had no means to force reentry, and ignored it because space is the big empty.
They knew in the back of their mind that there was a problem, but skipped it for their current project. That became habit.
It really was a self solving problem in the early days.
We see the, and largely have moved to correct for the "destruction of the planet" (which by the way, is entirely beyond man's capability, regardless of how many dystopian movies are made about it). Deforestation, polluted rivers, smog, litter, etc, are all problems that have been seen and are being addressed, rather successfully for the most part. CO2 is being worked on as we speak.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.