Near-misses between space station and debris on the rise

On Apr 7, 3:48*pm, "dott.Piergiorgio" wrote:
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)

WEll then. it's already there. What's the problem?

On Apr 7, 1:35*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:48*pm, "dott.Piergiorgio" wrote:









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)

WEll then. it's already there. What's the problem?

Oh sheesh, another warhol...

Dean was thinking very hard :
On Apr 7, 1:35*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:48*pm, "dott.Piergiorgio" wrote:









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)

WEll then. it's already there. What's the problem?

Oh sheesh, another warhol...

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2110513_2110627_2110753,00.html

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan" wrote:


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


No. The two things are very different. In fact, it is missile
defense tests that can be one of the CAUSES of orbital space debris.


You're a complete moron, you and Allen should leave
this ng and never come back, neither of you are
welcome here.






Hmm, let's see what I can google.....


unrelated Googlespew elided

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

On 4/8/2012 8:17 AM, Jonathan wrote:
"Fred J. wrote in message
wrote:


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


No. The two things are very different. In fact, it is missile
defense tests that can be one of the CAUSES of orbital space debris.


You're a complete moron, you and Allen should leave
this ng and never come back, neither of you are
welcome here.


flame war pause
Fred's right. Any high-energy collision in orbit generates lots more,
smaller debris. An ASAT test or operational mission breaks the target up
into many, many smaller pieces. Those pieces (in very low orbits) do
decay faster than the larger satellite but they do exacerbate the debris
problem, since even very small objects ruin your whole day when they hit
at 20,000 miles per hour (your orbital velocity, hitting another whose
vector is orthogonal to yours).

There's no simple way (or even complex way as far as I know) to remove
the inventory of small (1-10mm) objects in orbit. Launcher manufacturers
now try to minimize the numbers of springs n'things that get released
along with the satellite after boost and in GEO, there's been a policy
of long standing to boost satellites into the graveyard when some
critical system exhausts its redundancy pool or consumables supply but
orbital debris is a problem that's here to stay. BMD technology doesn't
offer any solutions.

Any debris sweeper would need the characteristic of hugely inelastic
collision that dissipates kinetic energy in something like a gas that
dissipates and then allows both the sweeper and the swept to de-orbit
quickly. Think about ice-cube projectiles.

Paul

Il 08/04/2012 19:15, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:

It's morons like you, Navia, The Guthball, and Bobbert that have
wrecked this newsgroup and driven off most of the contributing
posters. These are 'sci' groups. They don't exist for mentally
deficiant juveniles to blather about this and that. Posters are
expected to rationally and logically support their positions with
facts. When they fail to do so, people are going to point it out.
When they persist in posting the same thing over and over and over
again while failing to ever support it, people are likely to ridicule
them.

this is why warhol ought to be driven out of s.m.n. (not necessarily by
hard means....)

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

"dott.Piergiorgio" wrote in message
. ..
Il 08/04/2012 19:15, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:

It's morons like you, Navia, The Guthball, and Bobbert that have
wrecked this newsgroup and driven off most of the contributing
posters. These are 'sci' groups. They don't exist for mentally
deficiant juveniles to blather about this and that. Posters are
expected to rationally and logically support their positions with
facts. When they fail to do so, people are going to point it out.
When they persist in posting the same thing over and over and over
again while failing to ever support it, people are likely to ridicule
them.

this is why warhol ought to be driven out of s.m.n. (not necessarily by
hard means....)


Warhol is really Fred McCall, which is really Allen Erstine, Fred
uses multiple nics including mine now. Which is why I'm outta
this space ng.




Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

Il 08/04/2012 19:54, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:

It's morons like you, Navia, The Guthball, and Bobbert that have
wrecked this newsgroup and driven off most of the contributing
posters. These are 'sci' groups. They don't exist for mentally
deficiant juveniles to blather about this and that. Posters are
expected to rationally and logically support their positions with
facts. When they fail to do so, people are going to point it out.
When they persist in posting the same thing over and over and over
again while failing to ever support it, people are likely to ridicule
them.

this is why warhol ought to be driven out of s.m.n. (not necessarily by
hard means....)


Has Warhol been stupid enough to actually publicly threaten to try to
trash a newsgroup? I only see the bits of his idiocy that Eugene
quotes, since Warhol has been in my killfile since pretty much Day
One.

believe it or not, but has actually done this:

nonsense of warhole below:

yes imagine... ha ha ha... In two weeks WE(me) will be surprised to see
you inglorious ******* all moved in a moderated group where you
belong... like rats in a nest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyYJ9HWcLq0&NR=1

This Group is Mine now... FCK YOU *DOG*.

http://wholesale.piratemerch.com/ima...irate_flag.jpg

Oh, wait a moment,you're the one who doesn't believe Experiment "Led
Effort" coming from the Sali edge... you & your gang wanted war well we
shall have fun... when you shall hate this group because I will be in
your brain... Than Imagine me... hi hi hi.

Run run run...

/end nonsense

go figure....

Best regards from Italy, and apologies for the unpleasant reporting
Dott. piergiorgio.

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
m...
On 4/8/2012 8:17 AM, Jonathan wrote:
"Fred J. wrote in message
wrote:


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


No. The two things are very different. In fact, it is missile
defense tests that can be one of the CAUSES of orbital space debris.


You're a complete moron, you and Allen should leave
this ng and never come back, neither of you are
welcome here.


flame war pause
Fred's right. Any high-energy collision in orbit generates lots more,
smaller debris. An ASAT test or operational mission breaks the target up
into many, many smaller pieces.


But lasers, not interceptors, are becoming the weapon of choice, and
lasers also can remove debris. Dual purpose!

Using Lasers in Space

Laser Orbital Debris Removal and Asteroid Deflection

"Claude Phipps suggested the use of laser propulsion with
a ground-based pulsed laser as a solution to the orbital debris
problem in 1994 (Phipps 1994). The Orion Project, which was
a study conducted by NASA and the USAF in 1995-96,
concluded that the concept of using ground-based lasers for
removing orbital debris is feasible and cost effective relative
to the cost of placing objects in orbit (Campbell 1996).
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf


And since we've recently built just such a ground based
laser facility the paper suggests is needed, I think this
approach is becoming reality for both issues.

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






Those pieces (in very low orbits) do
decay faster than the larger satellite but they do exacerbate the debris
problem, since even very small objects ruin your whole day when they hit
at 20,000 miles per hour (your orbital velocity, hitting another whose
vector is orthogonal to yours).

There's no simple way (or even complex way as far as I know) to remove the
inventory of small (1-10mm) objects in orbit. Launcher manufacturers now
try to minimize the numbers of springs n'things that get released along
with the satellite after boost and in GEO, there's been a policy of long
standing to boost satellites into the graveyard when some critical system
exhausts its redundancy pool or consumables supply but orbital debris is a
problem that's here to stay. BMD technology doesn't offer any solutions.

Any debris sweeper would need the characteristic of hugely inelastic
collision that dissipates kinetic energy in something like a gas that
dissipates and then allows both the sweeper and the swept to de-orbit
quickly. Think about ice-cube projectiles.

Paul

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 19:40:00 +0200, dott.Piergiorgio wrote:

Il 08/04/2012 19:15, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:

It's morons like you, Navia, The Guthball, and Bobbert that have
wrecked this newsgroup and driven off most of the contributing posters.
These are 'sci' groups. They don't exist for mentally deficiant
juveniles to blather about this and that. Posters are expected to
rationally and logically support their positions with facts. When they
fail to do so, people are going to point it out. When they persist in
posting the same thing over and over and over again while failing to
ever support it, people are likely to ridicule them.

this is why warhol ought to be driven out of s.m.n. (not necessarily by
hard means....)

"Did you know that there are men who, for a fee, will drive you out of the country?"
"Who?"
"The Taxi Drivers"

I'm willing to take up a collection to provide Warhole, Guth, et al an opportunity to
observe in situ:
1) That rockets work in a vacuum.
2) The International Space Station in orbit.
Pressurized cabins and space suits are deprecated as unnecessary costs.
--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system