Best way to remove junk from low Earth orbit

Andrew Nowicki wrote:

Rand Simberg wrote:


For most uses of satellites, pure polar orbits serve little or no
purpose. You might ask yourself why so few (perhaps none) are currently
positioned there. To explain why would require a course in satellite
mission systems design, and cannot accomplished in a Usenet post of any
reasonable length, and I don't provide that kind of course without
compensation.


You are indeed an idiot!!!

An ignorant would try to correct
his mistake, but all you do is
to repeat your idiotic claim.

laughing

Do you have some evidence that it is idiotic?

Andrew Nowicki wrote:

You are indeed an idiot!!!

I think I speak for many here in saying that you are clearly
the idiot in this conversation. I mean, 'sinus'? Heh heh heh.

Go away and stop archiving your stupidity in google for future
generations to boggle at.

Paul

"Andrew Nowicki" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:

...tell me, exactly what good would a polar orbiter
do for say a Com sat that's normally at geosynch?

Read my post again. I am talking about
*low* Earth orbit satellites.
^^^^^

You're right, I missed that, but even then, you're making your satellites
fairly useless. Why would I want a st to be over the poles for a good
portion of its flight?



Junk in the geostationary orbit needs just a little
nudge to be corralled into one lump, but junk in the
unpredictable, low Earth orbits is much more difficult
to remove.

Andrew Nowicki wrote:
The existing junk (also known as orbital debris)
is difficult to remove because it has been lunched
into unpredictable, precessing orbits. Polar and
equatorial orbits do not precess, so they are
predictable. A large net can remove the junk from
the predictable orbits at a cost several orders
of magnitude lower than the cost of junk removal
from the unpredictable orbits.

One solution would be to move all of the low earth orbit satellites out of
the way temporarily ( or find ways to use it in a higher orbit) and then
launch a series of rockets that release a temporary gas cloud (maybe liquid
nitrogen?). Friction with even this rarified gas should deorbit all of the
junk in a few years as it steals velocity from at every orbit. The gas would
either dissipates or is recaptured by the planetary gravity so we could use
the cleared area ourself after a period. Sort of artificially expanding the
earths atmospheric drag ( which tends to deorbit LEO objects as it is )
artificially for a period of 'clean sweep'.

Andrew Nowicki wrote in message ...
The existing junk (also known as orbital debris)
is difficult to remove because it has been lunched
into unpredictable, precessing orbits. Polar and
equatorial orbits do not precess, so they are
predictable. A large net can remove the junk from
the predictable orbits at a cost several orders
of magnitude lower than the cost of junk removal
from the unpredictable orbits.

You are a very confused man.

Polar orbits *do* precess, but at certain inclination/altitude
combinations, the rate of precession balances out the motion of the
earth around the sun. Unfortunately, other perturbations will drive
anything out of these orbits over time.

Removing the space junk is hard because space is big and the junk is
small and there's a lot of it. Regardless, it's pretty clear that if
one wants to get rid of it, Project Orion will do a perfectly
serviceable job, and that's even before the latest round of missile
defense research.

-jake

Andrew Nowicki :

Suppose that we restrict all new low Earth orbit
satellites to circular, polar orbits.

Which are the worse orbits possible for certain users.

Earl Colby Pottinger
--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

"Andrew Nowicki" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:

...tell me, exactly what good would a polar orbiter
do for say a Com sat that's normally at geosynch?

Read my post again. I am talking about
*low* Earth orbit satellites.
^^^^^

Junk in the geostationary orbit needs just a little
nudge to be corralled into one lump, but junk in the
unpredictable, low Earth orbits is much more difficult
to remove.

"Junk" in low Earth orbits will eventually re-enter due to atmospheric drag.
There is no need for "nets" or any other silly strategy to remove these
objects. What you need to do in LEO is to prevent the generation of more
junk.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"Ian St. John" wrote in message
.. .
One solution would be to move all of the low earth orbit satellites out of
the way temporarily ( or find ways to use it in a higher orbit) and then
launch a series of rockets that release a temporary gas cloud (maybe
liquid
nitrogen?). Friction with even this rarified gas should deorbit all of the
junk in a few years as it steals velocity from at every orbit. The gas
would
either dissipates or is recaptured by the planetary gravity so we could
use
the cleared area ourself after a period. Sort of artificially expanding
the
earths atmospheric drag ( which tends to deorbit LEO objects as it is )
artificially for a period of 'clean sweep'.


There is already gas in LEO, it's called earth's atmosphere. That's why ISS
has to be regularly reboosted. We don't have to worry much about junk in
LEO because it will eventually re-enter. All we have to do is to stop
creating new junk in LEO.

The real problem areas for man made orbital debris are higher than LEO.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Ian St. John" wrote in message
.. .
One solution would be to move all of the low earth orbit satellites
out of the way temporarily ( or find ways to use it in a higher
orbit) and then launch a series of rockets that release a temporary
gas cloud (maybe liquid nitrogen?). Friction with even this rarified
gas should deorbit all of the junk in a few years as it steals
velocity from at every orbit. The gas would either dissipates or is
recaptured by the planetary gravity so we could use the cleared area
ourself after a period. Sort of artificially expanding the earths
atmospheric drag ( which tends to deorbit LEO objects as it is )
artificially for a period of 'clean sweep'.


There is already gas in LEO, it's called earth's atmosphere.

Yes, that is what I have said when referencing the expansion of the earths
atmosphere at times which increases drag. There is a very gradual tapering
off of the atmosphere so anywhere in LEO you get *some* drag, but the fact
is that it is a TRIVIAL amount for the orbiting junk. The idea is to
artificially incrase the drag for a period. This would have the advantage of
catching pretty much everything without needing exact orbits.

That's
why ISS has to be regularly reboosted. We don't have to worry much
about junk in LEO because it will eventually re-enter.

We do have to worry about junk in orbit as long as it is being created
faster than it is deorbiting. As the trivial drag at LEO will take centuries
to deorbit a small heavy object such as a bolt or metal fragment, it makes
sense to cut down on the junk. Also, the danger from very small objects that
cannot be tracked is one that cannot be predicted and this complicates
things.

All we have
to do is to stop creating new junk in LEO.

Oh, sure. Also wait a few centuries. Talk about your 'laisse fair'
initiative.


The real problem areas for man made orbital debris are higher than
LEO.

LEO is the busy highway. The rest is pretty much deserted country roads.

Jeff

Andrew Nowicki ) wrote:
: Rand Simberg wrote:
:
: Andrew Nowicki wrote:
:
: Some satellite makers and owners may complain
: that these restrictions force them to launch the
: new satellites into less than optimum orbits.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:
: You misspelled "useless."

: Are you an ignorant, or just another idiot?

Why can't he be both? Your question leaves it as an either/or, where I am
sugesting it is more of an both/and.

Eric