orbital debris removal

I understand that in LEO there is a substantial concentration of very
small debris, most of which cannot be tracked because it is too small.
In fact the space shuttle is sometimes hit by such things leaving
craters in its windows. Some of this tiny debris can be hazardous to
satellites. If there is any residual atmosphere, collisions with it
would preferentially remove this small stuff by momentum exchange but
the atmospheric density is just too low. I propose a way to
temporarily increase the atmospheric density in LEO by up two orders
of magnitude thus removing the smaller debris.
It is known that high altitude nuclear explosions cause atmospheric
"heave" where a column of heated air is thrown up to very high
altitudes thus increasing the density. This heave lasts for a few
hours before it settles back but the effect may be sufficient to
de-orbit much of the small debris. It might take only one or two such
explosions to clear the small debris from the equatorial region of
LEO.
Such atmospheric heave was once suggested as a way to protect
missile fields since the increased density would couse incoming RVs to
have large error in their trajectory. The amount of heave can be
adjusted by the yield and x-ray spectrum of the nuclear device.
Of course, we would have to consider EMP effects and effects of
potential radioactive bomb debris on satellites.

Parallax wrote:

It is known that high altitude nuclear explosions cause atmospheric
"heave" where a column of heated air is thrown up to very high
altitudes thus increasing the density. This heave lasts for a few
hours before it settles back but the effect may be sufficient to
de-orbit much of the small debris. It might take only one or two such
explosions to clear the small debris from the equatorial region of
LEO.

More politically acceptible solution: use powerful launch vehicles to
launch very heacvy payloads of liquid hydrogen into elliptical
*retrograde* orbits, and then release a large cloud of hydrogen. The
hydrogen will do a good job of braking small particles (and satellites,
space capsules, space staions...)

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:14:13 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

More politically acceptible solution: use powerful launch vehicles to
launch very heacvy payloads of liquid hydrogen into elliptical
*retrograde* orbits, and then release a large cloud of hydrogen. The
hydrogen will do a good job of braking small particles (and satellites,
space capsules, space staions...)

Water would be much more practical.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:14:13 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

More politically acceptible solution: use powerful launch vehicles to
launch very heacvy payloads of liquid hydrogen into elliptical
*retrograde* orbits, and then release a large cloud of hydrogen. The
hydrogen will do a good job of braking small particles (and satellites,
space capsules, space staions...)

Water would be much more practical.

Why? Hydrogen would be largely gasseous, while water would probably form
into a combo of vapor and snow. Most orbital debris only needs a
relatively small nudge to drag it down; don't need to go whacking it
with ten km/sec snowballs. And hydrogen would spread out into a wider
net, and woudl dissipate faster I should think. The cost of the hydrogen
would be a minimal thing compared to the cost of the launch vehicle.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 20:07:46 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Water would be much more practical.

Why?

Because of the density.

In article ,
Parallax wrote:
It is known that high altitude nuclear explosions cause atmospheric
"heave" where a column of heated air is thrown up to very high
altitudes thus increasing the density. This heave lasts for a few
hours before it settles back but the effect may be sufficient to
de-orbit much of the small debris. It might take only one or two such
explosions to clear the small debris from the equatorial region of
LEO.

It's been proposed. ("Some people have the same answer for every problem.")

But quite apart from the political difficulties, it solves only a modest
part of the problem, and has troublesome side effects. It doesn't reach
high enough to clear out everything, and it will tend to clear out
functioning spacecraft as well as debris.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 20:07:46 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Water would be much more practical.

Why?

Because of the density.

Which is, of course, virtually irrelevant. Water vapor (and any other
gas) density is highly dependant upon pressure... and for all intents
and purposes, the pressure in LEO is zero. Thus a cloud of *any* gas
will disperse, and pretty damned quick, too.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 21:23:34 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Water would be much more practical.

Why?

Because of the density.

Which is, of course, virtually irrelevant. Water vapor (and any other
gas) density is highly dependant upon pressure... and for all intents
and purposes, the pressure in LEO is zero. Thus a cloud of *any* gas
will disperse, and pretty damned quick, too.

You miss the point. I'm talking about packaging density. Delivering
hydrogen as a payload requires much larger tanks.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 21:23:34 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


Water would be much more practical.

Why?

Because of the density.

Which is, of course, virtually irrelevant. Water vapor (and any other
gas) density is highly dependant upon pressure... and for all intents
and purposes, the pressure in LEO is zero. Thus a cloud of *any* gas
will disperse, and pretty damned quick, too.


You miss the point. I'm talking about packaging density. Delivering
hydrogen as a payload requires much larger tanks.


Hmm. Would the fact that a water molecule weighs 9 times as much as
H2 have any effect on the drag?

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 20:21:42 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Parallax wrote:
It is known that high altitude nuclear explosions cause atmospheric
"heave" where a column of heated air is thrown up to very high
altitudes thus increasing the density. This heave lasts for a few
hours before it settles back but the effect may be sufficient to
de-orbit much of the small debris. It might take only one or two such
explosions to clear the small debris from the equatorial region of
LEO.

It's been proposed. ("Some people have the same answer for every problem.")

Yup, just like asteroid deflection.