Near-misses between space station and debris on the rise

Near-misses between space station and debris on the rise

BY STEPHEN CLARK
SPACEFLIGHT NOW
Posted: April 5, 2012


Statistics show the International Space Station came under growing
danger from space junk after 2007, with half of the orbiting lab's
close calls since then due to near-collisions with debris from a
Chinese anti-satellite missile test, the mysterious explosion of a
Russian military spacecraft, and the cataclysmic high-speed crash of
two satellites.

The space station, assembled in orbit beginning in 1998, has fired its
thrusters 14 times to avoid space debris, with half of the maneuvers
coming since August 2008.

If ground controllers recognize a debris threat, or conjunction, too
late, they ask the station crew to take refuge inside their Soyuz
escape capsules during the predicted closest approach. The lab's crew
has moved into their Soyuz lifeboats three times, first in March
2009.

NASA says the number of hazardous debris conjunctions per month more
than tripled between 2006 and 2008.

Officials blame the change on three debris-creating events:

China intercepted an orbiting satellite with a ground-launched missile
in January 2007. The anti-satellite test destroyed China's polar-
orbiting Fengyun 1C weather satellite 530 miles above Earth, creating
the largest cloud of space debris in history. More than 3,200 objects
from the destroyed satellite were catalogued by the U.S. military, and
only about 6 percent of the debris had re-entered the atmosphere by
the end of 2011.


A Russian military satellite broke apart in early 2008, spreading more
than 500 fragments in low Earth orbit. The Cosmos 2421 satellite,
launched in June 2006, liberated debris three times in March, April
and June 2008. Analysts say 22 out of 50 similar satellites launched
since 1974 have exploded in orbit. Cosmos 2421, which was designed to
eavesdrop on U.S. naval vessels, was orbiting 255 miles high when it
spread debris, and almost all of the satellite's fragments have re-
entered the atmosphere.


The Iridium 33 communications satellite and a retired Russian relay
spacecraft struck each other 490 miles over Siberia. The satellites
collided at a relative velocity of more than 24,000 mph, throwing more
than 1,700 objects through a region of space trafficked by the
International Space Station, numerous operational satellites, and more
than 3,000 other catalogued objects. It was the first collision of two
intact satellites. The bulk of the fragments from Cosmos 2251 and
Iridium 33 satellites remain in orbit.

The higher altitude break-ups of Fengyun 1C, Cosmos 2251 and Iridium
33 left long-lasting debris in orbit. It could be decades for all of
the fragments to fall back to Earth and burn up in the atmosphere.

NASA says increasing solar activity, which balloons the atmosphere and
creates more drag, is helping rid low-altitude orbital zones of some
debris.

At least 48 percent of the space station's near-misses since 2007 were
due to debris generated by China's anti-satellite test, Russia's
Cosmos 2421 satellite, and the in-orbit collision in 2009, according
to NASA data.

Officials commanded four of the space station's last seven debris
avoidance maneuvers to move the international complex out of the path
of debris created by the three incidents.

An emergency burn in August 2008 moved the space station out of the
way of debris from Cosmos 2421. Another thruster firing in April 2011
altered the station's orbit to avoid a close call with a fragment from
Cosmos 2251, the Russian satellite annihilated in the collision with
Iridium 33.

Two maneuvers in January dodged debris from Iridium 33 and Fengyun 1C,
the craft destroyed in China's satellite weapons test in 2007.

The last debris avoidance burn before 2008 was in May 2003. Experts
credit more accurate tracking technology for the reduction in
maneuvers, but the rate of near-misses picked up again in 2008 as
fragments from Russian, Chinese and Iridium satellites spread around
the globe.

The space station's six residents most recently scurried to their
Soyuz lifeboats March 24 due to the late notice of a threat from
Cosmos 2251 satellite debris produced in the 2009 orbital crash.

The space station is armored to protect against impacts of the tiniest
debris, and officials have a good handle on the trajectories of well-
known, large objects. But there is some dangerous debris too small or
erratic to accurately track.

U.S. Space Command, the military division which tracks objects in
orbit, notifies mission control in Houston of potential threats from
space junk.

The Air Force keeps tabs on more than 22,000 objects in orbit, and
experts believe there are hundreds of thousands more too small to be
spotted from existing radars. About 1,100 of those objects are active
satellites.

If an object is estimated to have a greater than 1-in-10,000 chance of
hitting the space station, managers will order a rocket burn to change
the orbit of the 450-ton complex. But it takes time to program an
avoidance maneuver, and late warnings force astronauts into their
Soyuz capsules to wait out the danger.

I wonder how long it will be before the station gets some real damage?

is it still true the station requires a atmosphere to cool station
keeping equiptement. when the station was new there was discussions a
depressurization could result in loss of control;. if a atmosphere
leak occured. no atmosphere control devices would overheat and shut
down.

is that still the case today?

In article 82ef8263-8c61-41a0-89d0-d1890e1e2365
@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com, says...

I wonder how long it will be before the station gets some real damage?

Define "real damage".

is it still true the station requires a atmosphere to cool station
keeping equiptement. when the station was new there was discussions a
depressurization could result in loss of control;. if a atmosphere
leak occured. no atmosphere control devices would overheat and shut
down.

is that still the case today?

I'm sure it is still the case. It's not like ISS has changed much since
then.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
I wonder how long it will be before the station gets some real damage?

is it still true the station requires a atmosphere to cool station
keeping equiptement. when the station was new there was discussions a
depressurization could result in loss of control;. if a atmosphere
leak occurred. no atmosphere control devices would overheat and shut
down.

is that still the case today?


The technology needed for missile defense should be very similar
to that needed for orbital space debris removal systems.
Hmm, let's see what I can google.....

NASA, DARPA Host Space Junk
Wake-Up Call

"There are some 300,000 objects larger than one centimeter
and they are all moving at hyper-velocity. The only way to
address this huge population is with laser technology,
Campbell noted.Orbital debris removal is a complex
problem, one that will require an umbrella of technologies
to do a complete solution, he stated."

"Anything that can go up and grab a piece of debris and
bring it down well, it can also grab somebody's operational
satellite and bring it down. Thats a space weapon,
he cautioned."
http://www.space.com/7644-nasa-darpa...wake-call.html


Darpa is looking into the issue with this solicitation a couple
of years ago for possible technologies for a system.

DARPA Orbital Debris Removal (ODR)
Solicitation Number: DARPA-SN-09-68

"Information is sought from all potential sources, domestic
and foreign, on innovative technological solutions that will
enable the Government to provide orbital debris removal
capabilities"
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...f2068d2b300b5f


Here's one response...

"Responded to DARPA Orbital Debris Removal (ODR) Request
for Information (DARPA-SN-09-68). PA&S developed and
submitted a concept for a Pneumatic Impingement Stabilization
of Unstable space debris for Orbital Debris Removal System
(ODRS). The PA&S ODRS is designed to stabilize larger
Orbital Debris by apply precisely targeted jets of highly energetic
gasses [pneumatic (gas) impingement] from an external source.
http://pouloscorp.com/news/darpa-orb...ebris-removal/



Here's a nicely detailed paper on space debris removal, it's a bit
dated, but according to this research....

"An elegant, cost effective, and feasible approach is to use laser
technology to solve this problem. It is estimated that a single.
Ground- based laser facility that costs about $100 million and
that operated near the equator could remove all orbital debris
up to an altitude of 800 km in two years Since satellites typically
cost several hundred million and given the half billion price tags
on shuttle and Titan launchers, this investment is relatively small
given the potential losses of rockets "
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf


And here's the brand new ground based laser facility....

Starfire Optical Range
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfire_Optical_Range


Here's the space based sensor for space debris

"The Space Development and Test Wing from Kirtland AFB, NM
successfully launched the second-ever mission of the Minotaur IV
launch vehicle."

"The payload for the launch was the Space Based Space Surveillance
(SBSS) spacecraft, a revolutionary technology which will usher in
a new era in space situational awareness. The SBSS space vehicle,
developed by Boeing and Ball Aerospace, uses an 11.8-inch telescope
mounted on a highly agile, two-axis gimbal to provide data needed
to keep better tabs on space debris and guard against accidental
collisions."
http://www.kirtland.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123224585



s

On Apr 6, 1:49*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message

...

I wonder how long it will be before the station gets some real damage?

is it still true the station requires a atmosphere to cool station
keeping equiptement. when the station was new there was discussions a
depressurization could result in loss of control;. if a atmosphere
leak occurred. no atmosphere control devices would overheat and shut
down.

is that still the case today?

The technology needed for missile defense should be very similar
to that needed for orbital space debris removal systems.
Hmm, let's see what I can google.....

NASA, DARPA Host Space Junk
Wake-Up Call

"There are some 300,000 objects larger than one centimeter
and they are all moving at hyper-velocity. The only way to
address this huge population is with laser technology,
Campbell noted.Orbital debris removal is a complex
problem, one that will require an umbrella of technologies
to do a complete solution, he stated."

"Anything that can go up and grab a piece of debris and
bring it down well, it can also grab somebody's operational
satellite and bring it down. Thats a space weapon,
he cautioned."http://www.space.com/7644-nasa-darpa-host-space-junk-wake-call.html

Darpa is looking into the issue with this solicitation a couple
of years ago for possible technologies for a system.

DARPA Orbital Debris Removal (ODR)
Solicitation Number: DARPA-SN-09-68

"Information is sought from all potential sources, domestic
and foreign, *on innovative technological solutions that will
enable the Government to provide orbital debris removal
capabilities"https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a55fd6e5721284ee. ..

Here's one response...

"Responded to DARPA Orbital Debris Removal (ODR) Request
for Information (DARPA-SN-09-68). *PA&S developed and
submitted a concept for a Pneumatic Impingement Stabilization
of Unstable space debris for Orbital Debris Removal System
(ODRS). *The PA&S ODRS is designed to stabilize larger
Orbital Debris by apply precisely targeted jets of highly energetic
gasses [pneumatic (gas) impingement] from an external source.http://pouloscorp.com/news/darpa-orb...ebris-removal/

Here's a nicely detailed paper on space debris removal, it's a bit
dated, but according to this research....

"An elegant, cost effective, and feasible approach is to use laser
technology to solve this problem. It is estimated that a single.
Ground- based laser facility that costs about $100 million and
that operated near the equator could remove all orbital debris
up to an altitude of 800 km in two years Since satellites typically
cost several hundred million and given the half billion price tags
on shuttle and Titan launchers, this investment is relatively small
given the potential losses of rockets "http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf

And here's the brand new ground based laser facility....

Starfire Optical Rangehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfire_Optical_Range

Here's the space based sensor for space debris

"The Space Development and Test Wing from Kirtland AFB, NM
successfully launched the second-ever mission of the Minotaur IV
*launch vehicle."

"The payload for the launch was the Space Based Space Surveillance
(SBSS) spacecraft, a revolutionary technology which will usher in
a new era in space situational awareness. The SBSS space vehicle,
developed by Boeing and Ball Aerospace, uses an 11.8-inch telescope
mounted on a highly agile, two-axis gimbal to provide data needed
to keep better tabs on space debris and guard against accidental
*collisions."http://www.kirtland.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123224585

s

This does not deal with the smaller debris that is also dangerous.
Why not launch a sub-orbital rocket that ejects a cloud of Tungsten
dust so the dust cloud is going the opposite way most debris is
moving. The dust cloud would reduce the speed of small debris causing
it to fall into the atmosphere. The dust cloud could be launched so
it has almost orbital velocity so it travels almost once around the
earth before it re-enters the atmosphere.

On Apr 6, 1:49*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

The technology needed for missile defense should be very similar
to that needed for orbital space debris removal systems.

Not true, missile defense warheads only need to intercept targets and
not rendezvous and capture. Missile defense systems only need less
than 1/4 orbital velocity.

On Apr 6, 7:15*pm, Frogwatch wrote:

This does not deal with the smaller debris that is also dangerous.
Why not launch a sub-orbital rocket that ejects a cloud of Tungsten
dust so the dust cloud is going the opposite way most debris is
moving. *The dust cloud would reduce the speed of small debris causing
it to fall into the atmosphere. *The dust cloud could be launched so
it has almost orbital velocity so it travels almost once around the
earth before it re-enters the atmosphere.

Or even cheaper, since its already the

Why not stick a pipe on the vacuum and hoover it all up?

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
On Apr 6, 1:49 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

This does not deal with the smaller debris that is also dangerous.
Why not launch a sub-orbital rocket that ejects a cloud of Tungsten
dust so the dust cloud is going the opposite way most debris is
moving. The dust cloud would reduce the speed of small debris causing
it to fall into the atmosphere. The dust cloud could be launched so
it has almost orbital velocity so it travels almost once around the
earth before it re-enters the atmosphere.

....................

The paper I linked to indicated that different systems
would be needed for different sizes of debris.
The Russians were talking about an automated
tug that would approach the larger pieces and
alter the orbits.

"Me" wrote in message
...
On Apr 6, 1:49 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

The technology needed for missile defense should be very similar
to that needed for orbital space debris removal systems.

Not true, missile defense warheads only need to intercept targets and
not rendezvous and capture. Missile defense systems only need less
than 1/4 orbital velocity.

......................

But lasers are the future, and for the larger pieces, missile
defense and orbital debris have the same difficult tasks,
tracking and intercepting objects in orbit. If you can knock
down a chunk of debris, you can take out someone else's
satellite. A fine line between weapon and utility.

Il 07/04/2012 01:25, Weatherlawyer ha scritto:
On Apr 6, 7:15 pm, wrote:

This does not deal with the smaller debris that is also dangerous.
Why not launch a sub-orbital rocket that ejects a cloud of Tungsten
dust so the dust cloud is going the opposite way most debris is
moving. The dust cloud would reduce the speed of small debris causing
it to fall into the atmosphere. The dust cloud could be launched so
it has almost orbital velocity so it travels almost once around the
earth before it re-enters the atmosphere.

Or even cheaper, since its already the

Why not stick a pipe on the vacuum and hoover it all up?

seems that how vacuum pump works escapes you... (hint: the debris are
*already* in a vacuum environment)

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.