Swiss space plane to launch robotic orbital debris destroyer

"Last year, the Swiss Space Center at the University of Lausanne announced the
planned launch of CleanSpace One, a robotic satellite designed to grab onto large
pieces of space junk and push them down towards Earth, where ablation with the
atmosphere will burn up the trash. Now, in partnership with Swiss Space Systems
(S3), the team is proposing using an experimental space plane to get the 30
kilogram CleanSpace One into orbit."

See:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09...ris _cleaner/

In article ,
wrote:

"Last year, the Swiss Space Center at the University of Lausanne announced
the
planned launch of CleanSpace One, a robotic satellite designed to grab onto
large
pieces of space junk and push them down towards Earth, where ablation with
the
atmosphere will burn up the trash. Now, in partnership with Swiss Space
Systems
(S3), the team is proposing using an experimental space plane to get the 30
kilogram CleanSpace One into orbit."

See:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09...nch_robotic_or
bital_debris_cleaner/

If it is to be successful, it must have a pretty robust propulsion
system aboard.

On 09/11/2013 11:47 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

"Last year, the Swiss Space Center at the University of Lausanne announced
the
planned launch of CleanSpace One, a robotic satellite designed to grab onto
large
pieces of space junk and push them down towards Earth, where ablation with
the
atmosphere will burn up the trash. Now, in partnership with Swiss Space
Systems
(S3), the team is proposing using an experimental space plane to get the 30
kilogram CleanSpace One into orbit."

See:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09...nch_robotic_or
bital_debris_cleaner/

If it is to be successful, it must have a pretty robust propulsion
system aboard.


The article says that it's a single use satellite. It will catch a
single orbital debris and de-orbit with it. It's more of a proof of
concept thing than a real system for cleaning up space junk.

I think that for a system which would aim at removing many items
propulsion should be mostly from catapult. You catch a piece of
debris, you put it in a catapult and choose your next target in such
a way that using the catapult as a propulsion system to go near
to that target has the effect of sending the debris into the upper
atmosphere. You might once in a while eject debris from Earth's
gravity well to lower your orbit. Of course you also need some more
conventional propulsion for final approach.


Alain Fournier

In article ,
Alain Fournier wrote:

On 09/11/2013 11:47 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

"Last year, the Swiss Space Center at the University of Lausanne announced
the
planned launch of CleanSpace One, a robotic satellite designed to grab
onto
large
pieces of space junk and push them down towards Earth, where ablation with
the
atmosphere will burn up the trash. Now, in partnership with Swiss Space
Systems
(S3), the team is proposing using an experimental space plane to get the
30
kilogram CleanSpace One into orbit."

See:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09...launch_robotic
_or
bital_debris_cleaner/

If it is to be successful, it must have a pretty robust propulsion
system aboard.


The article says that it's a single use satellite. It will catch a
single orbital debris and de-orbit with it. It's more of a proof of
concept thing than a real system for cleaning up space junk.

I think that for a system which would aim at removing many items
propulsion should be mostly from catapult. You catch a piece of
debris, you put it in a catapult and choose your next target in such
a way that using the catapult as a propulsion system to go near
to that target has the effect of sending the debris into the upper
atmosphere. You might once in a while eject debris from Earth's
gravity well to lower your orbit. Of course you also need some more
conventional propulsion for final approach.


Alain Fournier

That won't work, as the catapult creates an exchange of momentum between
the satellite and the debris. You still need a robust propulsion system
to perform orbit changes and docking/capture.

On 09/12/2013 1:27 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
Alain Fournier wrote:

I think that for a system which would aim at removing many items
propulsion should be mostly from catapult. You catch a piece of
debris, you put it in a catapult and choose your next target in such
a way that using the catapult as a propulsion system to go near
to that target has the effect of sending the debris into the upper
atmosphere. You might once in a while eject debris from Earth's
gravity well to lower your orbit. Of course you also need some more
conventional propulsion for final approach.

That won't work, as the catapult creates an exchange of momentum between
the satellite and the debris. You still need a robust propulsion system
to perform orbit changes and docking/capture.

I'm not sure I understand your comment. You need a propulsion system to
perform orbit changes. But that propulsion system doesn't have to throw
gases in the back, it can throw useless satellite parts (space debris)
instead. I do think you would want to have a more conventional
propulsion system also, but throwing space debris can be a propulsion
system.


Alain Fournier

On 09/11/2013 11:47 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

"Last year, the Swiss Space Center at the University of Lausanne
announced
the
planned launch of CleanSpace One, a robotic satellite designed to grab
onto
large
pieces of space junk and push them down towards Earth, where ablation
with
the
atmosphere will burn up the trash. Now, in partnership with Swiss Space
Systems
(S3), the team is proposing using an experimental space plane to get the
30
kilogram CleanSpace One into orbit."

See:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09...nch_robotic_or
bital_debris_cleaner/

If it is to be successful, it must have a pretty robust propulsion
system aboard.


The article says that it's a single use satellite. It will catch a
single orbital debris and de-orbit with it. It's more of a proof of
concept thing than a real system for cleaning up space junk.

I think that for a system which would aim at removing many items
propulsion should be mostly from catapult. You catch a piece of
debris, you put it in a catapult and choose your next target in such
a way that using the catapult as a propulsion system to go near
to that target has the effect of sending the debris into the upper
atmosphere. You might once in a while eject debris from Earth's
gravity well to lower your orbit. Of course you also need some more
conventional propulsion for final approach.


On one hand, that's not a bad solution in some ways. Use electricity to
"wind the windlass" and then release. Use the mass of the material you're
deorbiting to move you towards your next mass. Sort of delta V.

The problem is, the size masses I think are most troublesome are too small
for this to be effective. If they're big enough to alter the course of your
scavenger craft, they're probably big enough to be tracked and avoided.

It's the smaller stuff I think is the bigger problem (so to speak.)

That said, I still think some sort of aerogel may be the ultimate solution.
Slow things down one pass at a time. Stuff that needs to remain in orbit
maneuvers around it.




Alain Fournier



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On 9/12/2013 3:50 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
That said, I still think some sort of aerogel may be the ultimate
solution. Slow things down one pass at a time. Stuff that needs to
remain in orbit maneuvers around it.


Or if it's big (massive) enough, blasts right through it.

Dave

On 9/12/2013 6:27 PM, David Spain wrote:
On 9/12/2013 3:50 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
That said, I still think some sort of aerogel may be the ultimate
solution. Slow things down one pass at a time. Stuff that needs to
remain in orbit maneuvers around it.


Which makes me think the best strategy to deploy orbital sweeping
aerogels would be in layers. Perhaps high to low. Maybe with lowest
orbits (those just above the atmosphere) having higher densities.

You'd want to deploy those aerogels in clusters with plenty of spacing
to be able to easily shoot through them on the way to a higher orbit but
persistent enough to force the orbiting junk to pass through it.

Hmm. It'd be nice if that aerogel would dissipate after some time, being
dense enough only to slow objects after a few passes through it. If you
can wait days or weeks it could do its job and then essentially disappear.

What's the vertical distribution of space junk? Is it mostly in the LEO
shell used by recon sats? Hmm. Also the inclination of the deployment
might be key and a good way to avoid messing with stuff you don't want
to mess with. If you deployed aerogels at 90 deg inclination how much
"space junk" as a percentage of the total would it sweep? 30%, 50%, 80%?

How significant would it be to have that aerogel traveling retrograde to
the orbiting objects? You'd get a negative deltaV advantage on some of
them. 50%?

Dave "smoke gets in your eyes" S.

On Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:50:09 PM UTC-4, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
On 09/11/2013 11:47 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article ,

wrote:



"Last year, the Swiss Space Center at the University of Lausanne

announced

the

planned launch of CleanSpace One, a robotic satellite designed to grab

onto

large

pieces of space junk and push them down towards Earth, where ablation

with

the

atmosphere will burn up the trash. Now, in partnership with Swiss Space

Systems

(S3), the team is proposing using an experimental space plane to get the

30

kilogram CleanSpace One into orbit."



See:



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09...nch_robotic_or

bital_debris_cleaner/



If it is to be successful, it must have a pretty robust propulsion

system aboard.





The article says that it's a single use satellite. It will catch a

single orbital debris and de-orbit with it. It's more of a proof of

concept thing than a real system for cleaning up space junk.



I think that for a system which would aim at removing many items

propulsion should be mostly from catapult. You catch a piece of

debris, you put it in a catapult and choose your next target in such

a way that using the catapult as a propulsion system to go near

to that target has the effect of sending the debris into the upper

atmosphere. You might once in a while eject debris from Earth's

gravity well to lower your orbit. Of course you also need some more

conventional propulsion for final approach.





On one hand, that's not a bad solution in some ways. Use electricity to

"wind the windlass" and then release. Use the mass of the material you're

deorbiting to move you towards your next mass. Sort of delta V.



The problem is, the size masses I think are most troublesome are too small

for this to be effective. If they're big enough to alter the course of your

scavenger craft, they're probably big enough to be tracked and avoided.



It's the smaller stuff I think is the bigger problem (so to speak.)


A large part of the problem comes from big stuff colliding and becoming lots of small stuff.


Alain Fournier

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:
On one hand, that's not a bad solution in some ways. Use
electricity to "wind the windlass" and then release. Use the mass
of the material you're deorbiting to move you towards your next
mass. Sort of delta V.

The problem is, the size masses I think are most troublesome are too
small for this to be effective. If they're big enough to alter the
course of your scavenger craft, they're probably big enough to be
tracked and avoided.

If they are not big enough to be tracked and avoided, then then are to
small to be tracked and so cannot be intercepted and catapulted
actively in the first place right?

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flag
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...