Recent events have put a fair amount of debris in potential collision
with ISS and I assume a bunch of LEO satellites. It isn't the first
time and likely not the last.

At the technical perspective, what concepts/technolopgies could
pontentially be developped to make a vaccum cleaner for space?

Say you can easiuly lauch a ship in same orbit as the debris field and
it can sneak up behind it. Is the concept of using a laser to vaproize
pieces of metal real or just science fiction? If you "laser" a piece of
depris, does it just become small pellets of aliminium which then become
bullets that penetrate ISS or other satellites? Or would it render the
aluminium harmless ?

It is possible to recreate re-entry conditions that destroy the pieces?

Or is physically capturing the pieces, put them in a big bucket and
de-orbiting the bucket the only way?

Could one launch retrograde in that orbit and spread air in the orbital
path at that altitude such that when the debris hit that air (which
woudld be going at orbital sped in opposite direction) would slow down
the debris and/or burn it up? (causing both debris and air to drop
down).

I am curious to see what science would come up with should there be a
challenge of cleaning space debris equal to landing a man on the moon
and returning him safely before the end of the decade.

JF Mezei speculated:
> Recent events have put a fair amount of debris in potential collision
> with ISS and I assume a bunch of LEO satellites. It isn't the first
> time and likely not the last.
>
> At the technical perspective, what concepts/technolopgies could
> pontentially be developped to make a vaccum cleaner for space?
>
>
> Say you can easiuly lauch a ship in same orbit as the debris field and
> it can sneak up behind it. Is the concept of using a laser to vaproize
> pieces of metal real or just science fiction? If you "laser" a piece of
> depris, does it just become small pellets of aliminium which then become
> bullets that penetrate ISS or other satellites? Or would it render the
> aluminium harmless ?
>
>
> It is possible to recreate re-entry conditions that destroy the pieces?
>
> Or is physically capturing the pieces, put them in a big bucket and
> de-orbiting the bucket the only way?
>
>
> Could one launch retrograde in that orbit and spread air in the orbital
> path at that altitude such that when the debris hit that air (which
> woudld be going at orbital sped in opposite direction) would slow down
> the debris and/or burn it up? (causing both debris and air to drop
> down).
>
>
> I am curious to see what science would come up with should there be a
> challenge of cleaning space debris equal to landing a man on the moon
> and returning him safely before the end of the decade.

I would consider coming up on a flock of small debris and spraying foam
on them.

From behind, so that delta-v can be minimized at, but then get slightly
ahead. The foam then encapsulates the flock, greatly increasing drag,
and perhaps subtracting a tiny bit of delta-v immediately.

However, I think most debris collection ideas target gathering larger
pieces before they become smaller pieces through impacts.

Laser treatment of small pieces could (in my back-of-envelope world) be
done either to vaporize the pieces, which would take a lot of power
(B.O.E.), or to do the light-sail thing to them, changing their
velocity. I think either would best be done as an accessory to a large
permanent platform (the ISS comes to mind), permanently mounted on the
trailing module or truss end. I'm not sure how detection or aiming
would be done, radar might not be effective even at close range, but
lidar might help.

/dps "no, I haven't drilled down in any recent proposals"

--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean

Hi all,

First step should be not making any more debris in the first place. I.e.: Russians, please stop being such complete assholes.

Second step is already mostly done, effective tracking and avoidance of dangerous pieces. The current tracking and early warning systems are pretty good but any upgrade and improvement would be welcome.

Third step..., hmm, investigate methods to remove debris. Maybe get someone with way-too-money (Bezo, Musk, Gates, I'm talking to you) to sponsor an X-prize type competition. Top three proposals (under say 25 kgs) get a free ride on the next Space-X flight sending something to HEO/GEO. The winner is decided on time and amount of debris cleared. Winner gets prize and bragging rights, and the space industry (and the 8 billion suckers on the planet who depend on the data supplied by satellites) get a slightly higher chance of keeping their extremely expensive hardware intact.

Arbitary question: Skylab was brought down by higher than usual atmospheric drag during a unusually high point of the solar spot cycle. Apparently a more intense solar wind equals a higher temperature in the upper atmosphere, and when gas warms it expands. How high is the practical limit on this form of natural LEO sweeping, and what is the minimum size particle it can 'take care of'.

Regards
Frank

On 18-Nov-21 6:50 am, JF Mezei wrote:
> Recent events have put a fair amount of debris in potential collision
> with ISS and I assume a bunch of LEO satellites. It isn't the first
> time and likely not the last.
>
> At the technical perspective, what concepts/technolopgies could
> pontentially be developped to make a vaccum cleaner for space?
>
>
> Say you can easiuly lauch a ship in same orbit as the debris field and
> it can sneak up behind it. Is the concept of using a laser to vaproize
> pieces of metal real or just science fiction? If you "laser" a piece of
> depris, does it just become small pellets of aliminium which then become
> bullets that penetrate ISS or other satellites? Or would it render the
> aluminium harmless ?
>
>
> It is possible to recreate re-entry conditions that destroy the pieces?
>
> Or is physically capturing the pieces, put them in a big bucket and
> de-orbiting the bucket the only way?
>
>
> Could one launch retrograde in that orbit and spread air in the orbital
> path at that altitude such that when the debris hit that air (which
> woudld be going at orbital sped in opposite direction) would slow down
> the debris and/or burn it up? (causing both debris and air to drop
> down).
>
>
> I am curious to see what science would come up with should there be a
> challenge of cleaning space debris equal to landing a man on the moon
> and returning him safely before the end of the decade.
>

The debris field tends to spread out, and it's not in a single orbit,
because the initial destruction imparted different velocities to the
bits, in all directions.

Sylvia.

On Nov/19/2021 at 18:24, Sylvia Else wrote :
> On 18-Nov-21 6:50 am, JF Mezei wrote:
>> Recent events have put a fair amount of debris in potential collision
>> with ISS and I assume a bunch of LEO satellites.  It isn't the first
>> time and likely not the last.
>>
>> At the technical perspective, what concepts/technolopgies could
>> pontentially be developped to make a vaccum cleaner for space?
>>
>>
>> Say you can easiuly lauch a ship in same orbit as the debris field and
>> it can sneak up behind it.  Is the concept of using a laser to vaproize
>> pieces of metal real or just science fiction?  If you "laser" a piece of
>> depris, does it just become small pellets of aliminium which then become
>> bullets that penetrate ISS or other satellites? Or would it render the
>> aluminium harmless ?
>>
>>
>> It is possible to recreate re-entry conditions that destroy the pieces?
>>
>> Or is physically capturing the pieces, put them in a big bucket and
>> de-orbiting the bucket the only way?
>>
>>
>> Could one launch retrograde in that orbit and spread air in the orbital
>> path at that altitude such that when the debris hit that air (which
>> woudld be going at orbital sped in opposite direction) would slow down
>> the debris and/or burn it up?  (causing both debris and air to drop
>> down).
>>
>>
>> I am curious to see what science would come up with should there be a
>> challenge of cleaning space debris equal to landing a man on the moon
>> and returning him safely before the end of the decade.
>>
>
> The debris field tends to spread out, and it's not in a single orbit,
> because the initial destruction imparted different velocities to the
> bits, in all directions.
>
> Sylvia.

Yes. But all of the pieces that stay in orbit (some can re-enter
immediately, others may escape) should return to the point of impact.
At least initially. As you said, the field will spread out.

Alain Fournier

On 20-Nov-21 12:06 pm, Alain Fournier wrote:
> On Nov/19/2021 at 18:24, Sylvia Else wrote :
>> On 18-Nov-21 6:50 am, JF Mezei wrote:
>>> Recent events have put a fair amount of debris in potential collision
>>> with ISS and I assume a bunch of LEO satellites.  It isn't the first
>>> time and likely not the last.
>>>
>>> At the technical perspective, what concepts/technolopgies could
>>> pontentially be developped to make a vaccum cleaner for space?
>>>
>>>
>>> Say you can easiuly lauch a ship in same orbit as the debris field and
>>> it can sneak up behind it.  Is the concept of using a laser to vaproize
>>> pieces of metal real or just science fiction?  If you "laser" a piece of
>>> depris, does it just become small pellets of aliminium which then become
>>> bullets that penetrate ISS or other satellites? Or would it render the
>>> aluminium harmless ?
>>>
>>>
>>> It is possible to recreate re-entry conditions that destroy the pieces?
>>>
>>> Or is physically capturing the pieces, put them in a big bucket and
>>> de-orbiting the bucket the only way?
>>>
>>>
>>> Could one launch retrograde in that orbit and spread air in the orbital
>>> path at that altitude such that when the debris hit that air (which
>>> woudld be going at orbital sped in opposite direction) would slow down
>>> the debris and/or burn it up?  (causing both debris and air to drop
>>> down).
>>>
>>>
>>> I am curious to see what science would come up with should there be a
>>> challenge of cleaning space debris equal to landing a man on the moon
>>> and returning him safely before the end of the decade.
>>>
>>
>> The debris field tends to spread out, and it's not in a single orbit,
>> because the initial destruction imparted different velocities to the
>> bits, in all directions.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Yes. But all of the pieces that stay in orbit (some can re-enter
> immediately, others may escape) should return to the point of impact.
> At least initially. As you said, the field will spread out.

They will certainly return the point of impact, but not at the same
time, because they will have differing orbital periods.

Sylvia