A Space Debris Dustbuster?

March 27, 2009

What if NASA launched a spacecraft specially designed not for research or space exploration, but to pick up the increasing amount of trash accumulating in orbit and increasingly endangering satellites and astronauts?

Keep reading...there's more!

    The spacecraft would be the metaphorical equivalent of a gigantic Dustbuster -- except, that, of course, an actual vacuum sweeper wouldn’t do much good in the vacuum of space, so the device instead would use lasers to redirect pieces of orbital junk into its path and then deploy a powerful electromagnet to suction them up. The space trash would be gathered into the vehicle’s compartment, and then transported back to Earth for recycling or disposal in landfills.

    Such a garbage-collecting spacecraft—or rather, a fleet of them—might be able to eliminate what is turning into a huge, potentially catastrophic problem for our spacefaring civilization. A space debris Dustbuster would also help establish a new ethic of off-world environmentalism  for the exploration and commercial use of space.  It would help make clear that we don’t regard orbital space, the Moon, and other planets merely as natural resources to be exploited—or trashed, depending upon human convenience or whim. Instead, we would take responsibility for cleaning up our own mess, and hopefully do a better job of it than we’ve done on Earth since the Industrial Revolution.

    There’s at least one obvious downside to space detritus collection: Given the quantity of junk already in space, we’d probably need a sizeable fleet of space debris Dustbusters. Space shuttles are about $1.7 billion apiece to build and a single mission can cost as much as $2.4 billion, so we’re probably talking about having to spend an amount that would be the equivalent of several AIG bailouts.

    And who should be responsible for picking up the tab? Should all spacefaring nations be assessed a tax for each future mission to help finance an orbital cleanup, or should the nations who actually left all this junk in orbit—chiefly the U.S. and the Russian Federation, the successor state to the Soviet Union—have to bear the cost? If you thought the bickering over limiting carbon emissions was bad, the diplomatic brouhaha over space junk could be far worse.

    Space junk includes all kinds of stuff, ranging from bolts, lens caps and tools lost by spacewalking astronauts to pieces of rocket motors used to hoist spacecraft into orbit and the deteriorating hulks of obsolescent satellites. Embarrassing as it is to have all this crapola encircling our planet, we’re not just talking about aesthetic blight here. According to the Aerospace Corporation’s Center for Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies, the floatsam and jetsam hurtles through low orbital space at speeds in excess of 21,000 miles per hour—so fast that even particles as small as a flake of paint can cause significant damage to satellites and spacecraft. In space, a 1.3 millimeter piece of aluminum can do as much damage as a .22 caliber rifle bullet on Earth, while a 10 centimeter-long object is releases energy roughly comparable to the explosive force of 25 sticks of dynamite.

    The center says that space junk colliding with satellites can actually create even more junk. A 10-centimeter, one-kilogram piece of debris that crashes into a typical 1,200-kilogram spacecraft can cause more than a million fragments one-millimeter and larger in size to be spewed into space. That detritus then forms a debris cloud, which will pose an even higher impact risk to other spacecraft in the orbital vicinity. In February, when an aging Russian military satellite collided over Siberia with an American telecommunications satellite, the accident not only destroyed both spacecraft but created at least 352 pieces of orbiting wreckage.

    Recently, astronauts had to evacuate the International Space Station because of the danger from a piece of space junk that came precariously close. Here’s a Russian TV report on the event.

    Perhaps the first technological big fix for space junk was suggested by science fiction author Sir Arthur C. Clarke back in his 1978 novel The Fountains of Paradise, which about the building of a space elevator (see my previous blog on that subject).

    Fortunately, the old orbital forts were superbly equipped for this task. Their radars - designed to locate oncoming missiles at extreme ranges with no advance warning - could easily pinpoint the debris of the early Space Age. Then their lasers vaporized the smaller satellites, while the larger ones were nudged into higher and harmless orbits.

    But scientists have been divided about what to do about space junk. Some figure that the best strategy is to design satellites and spacecraft to withstand collisions with it. Others, as Clarke did, advocate some sort of orbital cleanup operation. One company, for example, has come up with the concept of a terminator tether that would haul in obsolescent satellites and return them to Earth before they begin to deteriorate. Others have proposed a ground-based system of lasers that would deflect space junk away from satellites and spacecraft. Still others have suggested creating a half-mile wide version of a Nerf ball and putting it in orbit to collide with space debris and absorb it.

    Those sound suitably clever, but I remain partial to a proposal for a space debris Dustbuster and a similar pitch for a space debris vacuum sweeper that I found in the web archives of the U.S. Air Force’s Air War College. Here’s a description by the unnamed author of his Dustbuster:

My idea is to develop a new space system that will remove unwanted space debris (small size, 10-30 cm.) The space system consists of a spacecraft like the shuttle that will fly around space and pick up space debris. The concept is basically like a vacuum cleaner. There would be a set of large bags inside the spacecraft that would collect the space debris, when the bag is full, a space person would remove the full bag and attach another one. Once the spacecraft is full of space debris bags, the space person would load the bags into an expendable space pod that would be ejected from the spacecraft into deep, deep outer space. A more advanced, fully automated, high tech system could be developed that would eliminate the space person in the loop.

    The space vacuum sweeper’s similarly unidentified creator goes into more elaborate detail about how the debris actually would be captured:

The technology I envision would be capable of detecting debris down to the size of a small marble. A constellation of space shuttle-like vehicles with a great deal of maneuvering fuel and storage area could be used with high power radars to detect space particles it wanted to capture. High power lasers would then be used to alter the particle's path, in a sense `sweeping` them into the proper orbit so they could be intercepted by the space shuttle-like vehicles. Once on a proper intercept, the space shuttle-like vehicles would use extremely long maneuvering arms and astronauts to capture particles. Small particles would be captured by a large electromagnet at the end of a maneuvering arm. The idea is to `vacuum` across space collecting the debris as it went through space. All the particles would be stored in the space shuttle's storage compartment until they could be brought back to earth.

    I’d merge the two concepts. The lasers and electromagnets approach sounds a little more practical than simply catching space trash in big bags, but I like the “Dustbuster” moniker.

    So what do you think? Should we build a fleet of orbital trash collectors? Or just hope that the junk doesn’t knock out anything important up there? Express your opinion below.

   

Comments

[Astroboy]

Come on, man. Fembots!

[jason]

Why don't we just blow up all the space junk?

[Mothra]

After you get done cleaning up all the space debris, can you straighten up my living room?

[Gary Waggoner]

Everybody is making jokes, but this is a serious problem that we are facing. We are increasingly dependent upon satellites for communication, defense surveillance, etc. If a telecom satellite gets knocked out by space junk, it may cost half a billion dollars to replace it, and in the meantime it may totally screw up our phone communications, TV programs, etc. Also, we're talking about a potentially lethal hazard to astronauts and manned spacecraft. And its only going to get worse!

[Janice]

This sounds like a really expensive solution to the problem. Isn't there a cheaper way?

[Chris staub]

How 'bout redirecting it to the Sun?

[Patrick Kiger]

Hey Chris, that's an interesting idea. I know some people have advocated redirecting the plutonium-laden Cassini probe into the Sun, rather than leaving it floating around in the outer solar system, out of fear that it may head back here and strike Earth.

[Wally Carmichael]

Wasn't that UFO that a lot of people saw the other day actually a piece of space junk burning up? Is space junk a danger to us on Earth?

[Astroboy]

Could we burn space junk as fuel?

[Mechagodzilla]

I think this is a necessary precaution, but I wonder how we are going to be able to afford it. Maybe if other nations chip in?

[mike]

most debris isn't magnetic in composition. you should look up Orion. it's a ground based pulse laser that causes an ablation jet on the debris to destabilize its orbit. it would take a few years but the power cost would be low. we don't even have to worry about it being a "star-wars" anti satelite weapon since it would take 4 years of continuous firing just to bring down one satellite. we are able to shield our craft from 1cm and smaller junk, and we can dodge 10cm and larger junk, but this system could concievabley take out the rest.

[Jim Goddard]

I like the lasers, but the trash bag idea is ridiculous. If you're going to go to the trouble to design a laser system sophisticated and powerful enough to maneuver debris close enough for rendesvous with your space garbage truck, why not just deorbit the debris? Fire the laser in opposition to the debris velocity vector, preferably at its perigee and lower its altitude enough so atmospheric drag can take hold. Much, much cheaper. A ground-based system would be even cheaper, although a much more powerful laser would likely be required.

[Patrick J. Kiger]

That is a much better solution, Robert. Thanks for suggesting it!

[kelly neuendorf.]

now this would be kool. some thing we really need. more than cars actually.

[generic viagra]

Humans and animals exposed to vacuum will lose consciousness after a few seconds and die of hypoxia within minutes. Blood and other body fluids do boil when their pressure drops below 6.3 kPa, the vapor pressure of water at body temperature. This condition is called ebullism. The steam may bloat the body to twice its normal size and slow circulation, but tissues are elastic and porous enough to prevent rupture.