Swiss craft janitor satellites to grab space junk

"Swiss scientists said Wednesday they plan to
launch a "janitor satellite" specially designed to
get rid of orbiting debris known as space junk.

The 10-million-franc ($11-million) satellite called
CleanSpace One — the prototype for a family
of such satellites — is being built by the Swiss
Space Center at the Swiss Federal Institute for
Technology in Lausanne, or EPFL."

See:

http://news.yahoo.com/swiss-craft-ja...XN0Aw--;_ylv=3

On 16/02/2012 5:54 AM, wrote:
"Swiss scientists said Wednesday they plan to
launch a "janitor satellite" specially designed to
get rid of orbiting debris known as space junk.

The 10-million-franc ($11-million) satellite called
CleanSpace One — the prototype for a family
of such satellites — is being built by the Swiss
Space Center at the Swiss Federal Institute for
Technology in Lausanne, or EPFL."


If you know where the space junk is well enough to send a satellite up
to deorbit it, you probably don't care that much about it unless you
determine that it's going to hit something else that isn't capable of
getting out of the way.

The real space junk hazard is from bits that are too small to track, but
still large enough to be a problem if they hit something valuable.

I can't help suspecting that the proposed satellites are something that
everyone agrees is a good idea in principle in terms of getting dead
satellites out of the sky, and reducing the scope for collisions that
create more untrackable junk, but that few will actually want to pay for.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else wrote:
If you know where the space junk is well enough to send a satellite up
to deorbit it, you probably don't care that much about it unless you
determine that it's going to hit something else that isn't capable of
getting out of the way.

The real space junk hazard is from bits that are too small to track, but
still large enough to be a problem if they hit something valuable.

I can't help suspecting that the proposed satellites are something that
everyone agrees is a good idea in principle in terms of getting dead
satellites out of the sky, and reducing the scope for collisions that
create more untrackable junk, but that few will actually want to pay for.

Agreed. What make more sense is a consortium of companies and/or space
agencies that do this co-operatively. Maybe as a treaty obligation for access
to space.

To me it seems like the best approach to this is to "seed" problem orbits with
an aerogel, dense enough to slow objects enough to re-enter (maybe after many
many passes through the aerogel) but not dense enough to cause the objects to
fragment further. The trick, of course, is to make sure the aerogel dissipates
eventually over time so that it doesn't present its own hazard or deny
orbits to future sats.

If you took the aerogel approach, which would be the preferred orbital
'direction'? Pro-grade or retro-grade relative to the items you wish to sweep?
Would it really matter which?

Dave

David Spain expressed precisely :

To me it seems like the best approach to this is to "seed" problem orbits
with an aerogel, dense enough to slow objects enough to re-enter (maybe after
many many passes through the aerogel) but not dense enough to cause the
objects to fragment further. The trick, of course, is to make sure the
aerogel dissipates eventually over time so that it doesn't present its own
hazard or deny orbits to future sats.

I've been thinking that too, which leads me to believe we're
overlooking something.

I've also thought that if enough of the items were magnetic, which
seems unlikely, a magnet in the center of the aerogel might be useful,
too.

If you took the aerogel approach, which would be the preferred orbital
'direction'? Pro-grade or retro-grade relative to the items you wish to
sweep?
Would it really matter which?

I'd think the aerogel would be more effective where the delta-v was
small, so pro-grade. If you tried retro-grade, most of the items
wouldn't even notice it, and it would be gone without making a
difference.

/dps

Snidely wrote:
David Spain expressed (not so) precisely :

The trick, of
course, is to make sure the aerogel dissipates eventually over time
so that it doesn't present its own hazard or deny orbits to future sats.

I've been thinking that too, which leads me to believe we're overlooking
something.


No doubt. It would depend upon the characteristics of the aerogel in a space
environment, items which I don't understand and haven't researched.

One possibility I can 'imagine', is that the aerogel collects a static
electrical charge in response to bombardment to solar radiation. With all
components charging identically it would tend to diffuse on its own.
But this is just me talking through my hat.

Anyone in the know, actually know?

Dave

In article , David Spain
wrote:


Agreed. What make more sense is a consortium of companies and/or space
agencies that do this co-operatively. Maybe as a treaty obligation for access
to space.

There's a Japanese cartoon and comic book "Planetes", in which all
space companies have to have a debris removal section. As there's no
money in it, it gets little funding and is where those with no hope of
career advancement go.

To me it seems like the best approach to this is to "seed" problem orbits
with
an aerogel, dense enough to slow objects enough to re-enter (maybe after many
many passes through the aerogel) but not dense enough to cause the objects to
fragment further.

How about something that just stays in place and lets objects hit it
and get stuck?

--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'

On 17/02/2012 3:08 AM, Invid Fan wrote:
In , David
wrote:


Agreed. What make more sense is a consortium of companies and/or space
agencies that do this co-operatively. Maybe as a treaty obligation for access
to space.

There's a Japanese cartoon and comic book "Planetes", in which all
space companies have to have a debris removal section. As there's no
money in it, it gets little funding and is where those with no hope of
career advancement go.

To me it seems like the best approach to this is to "seed" problem orbits
with
an aerogel, dense enough to slow objects enough to re-enter (maybe after many
many passes through the aerogel) but not dense enough to cause the objects to
fragment further.

How about something that just stays in place and lets objects hit it
and get stuck?


The problem, as Douglas Adams expressed it, is "space is big, I mean
really big."

Despite all the stuff floating around up there, actual collisions with
active space craft are still rare. Having something up there that just
waits to be hit isn't going to be an effective way of cleaning up the
space around Earth, even if that things is a lot larget than a typical
spacecraft.

Sylvia.

"Invid Fan" wrote in message ...

In article , David Spain
wrote:


Agreed. What make more sense is a consortium of companies and/or space
agencies that do this co-operatively. Maybe as a treaty obligation for
access
to space.

There's a Japanese cartoon and comic book "Planetes", in which all
space companies have to have a debris removal section. As there's no
money in it, it gets little funding and is where those with no hope of
career advancement go.


There's already rules on debris, obviously they're not enough.

To me it seems like the best approach to this is to "seed" problem orbits
with
an aerogel, dense enough to slow objects enough to re-enter (maybe after
many
many passes through the aerogel) but not dense enough to cause the
objects to
fragment further.

How about something that just stays in place and lets objects hit it
and get stuck?


Umm, how do you expect to keep it in place?


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