Space debris is in orbit, which means it's travelling fast. Space debris travels at 7 km/s. That would destroy any net you put up. Space debris that isn't travelling that fast just falls out of orbit.
Assuming I haven't misunderstood... the cost of launching 200,000+ nets into orbit would be high (in my opinion, maybe someone has a sneaky solution).
Assuming you could get each net (including guidance and propellant) down to about 1kg (not sure how realistic that is), and you can launch them into orbit for $4000/kg, then that'd be an expenditure of $800+ million not including R&D, manufacture, salaries, etc.
It'd also mean increasing the number of objects in orbit for while.
What could work might be a purpose-built spacecraft with a low-power but efficient engine (e.g. ion drive). This spacecraft would align velocities, then touch and bind every piece of space debris along its orbit. Eventually it would snowball enough to just let smaller pieces of debris hit it and stick. After it has become too heavy to maneuver, or when the propellant is depleted, the spacecraft would go down and burn in the atmosphere.
The problem is the way to properly bind the pieces of debris.
Sounds a bit like rain formation: nucleation and aggregation. But space is big, and the spacecraft is not attracting anything (too small for gravity to matter). Not sure even a big snowball is going to collect much debris. A solar sail perhaps? Cross-section has to be key.
At least 2 principles that I know allow a laser to push things:
1) photons do have impulse, given by its energy divides by the speed of light. This causes Radiation pressure (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure )
2) if a laser vaporises part of a structure, the resultant gas will push against the structure, delivering momentum
Feel like playing with laz0rz and shit? How about using your own money to arrange for that? Don't wanna? Well, good thing you can just use shitloads of money that's been forcefully taken from people!
I'd totally and completely voluntarily pay extra taxes if I knew it was going to be spent blasting junk out of orbit with giant lasers. Hell, I'd buy tickets just to watch.
I'm sure the people playing with lasers appreciate the sentiment, but what about the vast majority of people that, given the choice, would not finance the endeavour?
If one of your friends doesn't want to pitch in to support the laser games, would you want him thrown in jail for refusing to go along with the plan, or do you accept that he's got the right to use his hard-earned dollars as he sees fit?
Now apply that same reasoning to all government spending.
Nice press release- this is all old news. If you know where something is well enough to hit it with a laser, you're probably better off leaving it where it is and tracking it.
22 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 55.1 ms ] threadhttp://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/faqs.html#7
Assuming you could get each net (including guidance and propellant) down to about 1kg (not sure how realistic that is), and you can launch them into orbit for $4000/kg, then that'd be an expenditure of $800+ million not including R&D, manufacture, salaries, etc.
It'd also mean increasing the number of objects in orbit for while.
It would be put in an orbit that crosses orbits with a lot of debris.
The problem is the way to properly bind the pieces of debris.
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,288...
But I couldn't find any information about the solar tower they were building.
Is it "simply" that they fire a strong laser at the front of the object to slow it down, so that orbital mechanics do the rest and make it burn up?
Do lasers really allow you to "push" things?
At least 2 principles that I know allow a laser to push things:
1) photons do have impulse, given by its energy divides by the speed of light. This causes Radiation pressure (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure ) 2) if a laser vaporises part of a structure, the resultant gas will push against the structure, delivering momentum
If one of your friends doesn't want to pitch in to support the laser games, would you want him thrown in jail for refusing to go along with the plan, or do you accept that he's got the right to use his hard-earned dollars as he sees fit?
Now apply that same reasoning to all government spending.