Getting rid of LEO debris

I used to do wok on nuke explosions in space and one of the more
interesting phenomena was "atmospheric heave" whereby an exo-nuke
would suddenly heat the upper atmosphere causing it to rise in a huge
column so that at heights of 70-500 km, the atmospheric density would
b increased by orders of magnitude and this would last for hours.
Such heave could be used to bring down very small debris because such
debris has large surface area/mass and would respond to this increased
density.
However, as pretty as they might be, some people just dont like the
idea of exploding nukes up there.
So, why not use big reflectors in orbit to heat an arrea of the upper
atmosphere and accomplish the same thing?
For that matter, could HAARP be used to heat selected areas of the
upper amosphere o do this?

On Dec 31 2009, 10:53*pm, Frogwatch wrote:
I used to do wok on nuke explosions in space and one of the more
interesting phenomena was "atmospheric heave" whereby an exo-nuke
would suddenly heat the upper atmosphere causing it to rise in a huge
column so that at heights of 70-500 km, the atmospheric density would
b increased by orders of magnitude and this would last for hours.
Such heave could be used to bring down very small debris because such
debris has large surface area/mass and would respond to this increased
density.
However, as pretty as they might be, some people just dont like the
idea of exploding nukes up there.
So, why not use big reflectors in orbit to heat an arrea of the upper
atmosphere and accomplish the same thing?
For that matter, could HAARP be used to heat selected areas of the
upper amosphere o do this?

Back of the envelope calculations indicate that, HAARP could inject
10^11 Joules into the atmosphere in 12 hours, as compared with a nuke
which could inject 10^17 Joules. So the 3.6 MW HAARP falls about
1,000,000 times short of what you are looking for. If you'd like to
upgrade HAARP to run continuously at 3.6 TW, then we'd be in
business. Of course you'd be radiating a directional radio signal
which would fry the electronics of any working satellite which passes
through the beam.

Frogwatch wrote:
For that matter, could HAARP be used to heat selected areas of the
upper amosphere o do this?

Well, it is intended to heat up areas of the ionosphere, but that
seemed to be related to getting them to reflect radio waves for a
over-the-horizon radar system, and I don't know if it could cause the
atmosphere to balloon out to the altitude where most of the space debris
is. If it's that low, you might just as well wait for atmospheric drag
to cause it to reenter all on its own.
The "Casaba Howitzer" directed nuclear blast ABM/ASAT system might have
been able to blast some atmosphere up to those altitudes, but from what
little unclassified info is known of it, its primary kill mechanism was
a cloud of vaporized tungsten plasma directed at the target.

Pat

On Jan 1, 9:23*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
For that matter, could HAARP be used to heat selected areas of the
upper amosphere o do this?

Well, it is intended to heat up areas of the ionosphere, *but that
seemed to be related to getting them to reflect radio waves for a
over-the-horizon radar system, and I don't know if it could cause the
atmosphere to balloon out to the altitude where most of the space debris
is. If it's that low, you might just as well wait for atmospheric drag
to cause it to reenter all on its own.
The "Casaba Howitzer" directed nuclear blast ABM/ASAT system might have
been able to blast some atmosphere up to those altitudes, but from what
little unclassified info is known of it, its primary kill mechanism was
a cloud of vaporized tungsten plasma directed at the target.

Pat

I have googled "Casaba Howitzer" many times over the last few years
and found nothing.

Neil Fraser wrote:

Back of the envelope calculations indicate that, HAARP could inject
10^11 Joules into the atmosphere in 12 hours, as compared with a nuke
which could inject 10^17 Joules. So the 3.6 MW HAARP falls about
1,000,000 times short of what you are looking for. If you'd like to
upgrade HAARP to run continuously at 3.6 TW, then we'd be in
business. Of course you'd be radiating a directional radio signal
which would fry the electronics of any working satellite which passes
through the beam.

The cooling system on the equipment that could generate that powerful of
radio wave beam would be something to see also. Now we know why they put
it in Alaska, as it's part of a system to warm up the whole state with
its cooling air exhaust. ;-)

Pat

Frogwatch wrote:
The "Casaba Howitzer" directed nuclear blast ABM/ASAT system might have
been able to blast some atmosphere up to those altitudes, but from what
little unclassified info is known of it, its primary kill mechanism was
a cloud of vaporized tungsten plasma directed at the target.

Pat

I have googled "Casaba Howitzer" many times over the last few years
and found nothing.

It gets somewhat described on page 112 of George Dyson's book about
project Orion: http://tinyurl.com/y8fvoet
It basically was one of the nuclear drive bomblets of Orion:
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/orionpunit.jpg *
redesigned so that the plasma cloud it ejected was a lot more
directional, something like a nuclear version of a hollow charge
antitank warhead. Apparently it was to be launched on a interceptor
missile to a point very high in the atmosphere to keep the plasma cloud
from becoming disrupted after firing, and there detonated after being
aligned with the direction of the target. The impact of the cooling
plasma would cause a rapid deceleration of the target, which hopefully
would be severe enough to exceed its structural limits as well as damage
its outside surface on impact.

Pat

On Jan 1, 4:28*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
The "Casaba Howitzer" directed nuclear blast ABM/ASAT system might have
been able to blast some atmosphere up to those altitudes, but from what
little unclassified info is known of it, its primary kill mechanism was
a cloud of vaporized tungsten plasma directed at the target.

Pat

I have googled "Casaba Howitzer" many times over the last few years
and found nothing.

It gets somewhat described on page 112 of George Dyson's book about
project Orion:http://tinyurl.com/y8fvoet
It basically was one of the nuclear drive bomblets of Orion:http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/orionpunit.jpg*
redesigned so that the plasma cloud it ejected was a lot more
directional, something like a nuclear version of a hollow charge
antitank warhead. Apparently it was to be launched on a interceptor
missile *to a point very high in the atmosphere to keep the plasma cloud
from becoming disrupted after firing, and there detonated *after being
aligned with the direction of the target. The impact of the cooling
plasma would cause a rapid deceleration of the target, which hopefully
would be severe enough to exceed its structural limits as well as damage
its outside surface on impact.

Pat

My work used to concern effects of soft x-rays emitted by exo-
atmospheric nuke bursts. Roughly 75% of the output of a nuke is in
the form of soft x-rays and what we see as an explosion in the
atmosphere is simply these soft x-rays coupling to the surrounding
medium. In space, a nuke emits soft x-rays that go a long way with no
attenuation (excpet for 1/r^2). The deposition of these soft x-rays
happens in a very short time ( I will not give a number) and is of
sufficient fluence that it acts like an impact on a satellite, like
hitting it with a huge hammer.
Plasma would be mis-directed by the earths mag field whereas the soft
x-rays would not be. I wonder if the real kill mechanism would have
been the x-rays. Most US satellites were (are?) hardened against a
specified level of soft x-ray fluence.

Frogwatch wrote:

My work used to concern effects of soft x-rays emitted by exo-
atmospheric nuke bursts. Roughly 75% of the output of a nuke is in
the form of soft x-rays and what we see as an explosion in the
atmosphere is simply these soft x-rays coupling to the surrounding
medium. In space, a nuke emits soft x-rays that go a long way with no
attenuation (excpet for 1/r^2). The deposition of these soft x-rays
happens in a very short time ( I will not give a number) and is of
sufficient fluence that it acts like an impact on a satellite, like
hitting it with a huge hammer.


That's how the W-71 warhead on the Spartan ABM worked.
It achieved high X-ray flux by covering the thermonuclear secondary
section of the warhead with a layer of gold (a case of a literally
"gold-plating" a Pentagon project). ;-)


Plasma would be mis-directed by the earths mag field whereas the soft
x-rays would not be.


The plasma from the Casaba Howitzer detonation wouldn't be electrically
charged, just superheated by the detonation (the beryllium oxide channel
filler converted the radiation into heat as it absorbed it and
explosively vaporised, which then vaporized and projected the tungsten
plate sitting atop it.) so the magnetic field wouldn't deflect or
disperse it... time between detonation and target impact would be very
short anyway due to the extremely high velocity of the vaporized
tungsten cloud. On the Orion design, the impact force on the oil-covered
steel pusher plate was estimated to be 50,000 g's, and you can well
imagine what that would do to a satellite.


I wonder if the real kill mechanism would have
been the x-rays. Most US satellites were (are?) hardened against a
specified level of soft x-ray fluence.


Although the blast would generate significant radiation (on the Orion
design, each pulse unit would have a 30 kt yield) the design concept
would mean the beryllium oxide would soak up most of that in the
direction the device was being fired in.

Pat

Neil Fraser writes:

Back of the envelope calculations indicate that, HAARP could inject
10^11 Joules into the atmosphere in 12 hours, as compared with a nuke
which could inject 10^17 Joules. So the 3.6 MW HAARP falls about
1,000,000 times short of what you are looking for. If you'd like to
upgrade HAARP to run continuously at 3.6 TW, then we'd be in
business. Of course you'd be radiating a directional radio signal
which would fry the electronics of any working satellite which passes
through the beam.

Neil,

Maybe you could use sounding rockets to 'seed' the upper atmosphere
with material to make HAARP RF heating more efficient?

Then maybe you could get your atmospheric bulge for a lot less than
a factor of a 1,000,000 to 1 increase in energy?

It'd be an interesting science experiment. But when you get that high
up in the atmosphere (mesosphere?) how long does it for fine materials
placed up there to come down? You wouldn't want to make the problem
worse...

Dave

David Spain wrote:
Neil Fraser writes:

Back of the envelope calculations indicate that, HAARP could inject
10^11 Joules into the atmosphere in 12 hours, as compared with a nuke
which could inject 10^17 Joules. So the 3.6 MW HAARP falls about
1,000,000 times short of what you are looking for. If you'd like to
upgrade HAARP to run continuously at 3.6 TW, then we'd be in
business. Of course you'd be radiating a directional radio signal
which would fry the electronics of any working satellite which passes
through the beam.

Neil,

Maybe you could use sounding rockets to 'seed' the upper atmosphere
with material to make HAARP RF heating more efficient?

Then maybe you could get your atmospheric bulge for a lot less than
a factor of a 1,000,000 to 1 increase in energy?

It'd be an interesting science experiment. But when you get that high
up in the atmosphere (mesosphere?) how long does it for fine materials
placed up there to come down? You wouldn't want to make the problem
worse...

Ever hear of the "West Ford Needles" experiment?
http://www.damninteresting.com/earth...ject-west-ford
Those just floated down into the atmosphere without burning up when they
decayed out of orbit.

Pat