Earlier quoted context omitted.
And make sure that even in the most unhappy cases, you vent your tanks! Vent vent vent vent! Tank explosions are where the really nasty debris numbers come from.
What do you do with the added deltaV from the venting? (not sure if significant) It could send the already-out of control rocket stage/object to a weirder or worse orbit, increasing the changes of collision.
ESA report shows unsustainable levels of orbital debris
31–40 of 83 posts
Re: ESA report shows unsustainable levels of orbital debris
#32Maybe if starship achieves it's goals of rapid re-usability, then active debris removal could be affordable.
In the mean time it would make sense for some kind of international agreement that requires all launches plan for de-orbiting of their debris.
Re: ESA report shows unsustainable levels of orbital debris
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
And make sure that even in the most unhappy cases, you vent your tanks! Vent vent vent vent! Tank explosions are where the really nasty debris numbers come from.
What do you do with the added deltaV from the venting? (not sure if significant) It could send the already-out of control rocket stage/object to a weirder or worse orbit, increasing the changes of collision.
Re: ESA report shows unsustainable levels of orbital debris
#34Active debris removal (harpoon satellites, magnet arms, whatever) are not a solution to this problem and are a huge waste of money. These missions answer the question "could one dock with debris and deorbit it?" To which the answer is "obviously yes, but at enormous cost" and you don't need to spend 50M euros to prove it. The answer is exactly what governments and industry have been doing for at least two decades now…
This is wrong because it's based on a flawed assumption.
That assumption being: Propellant is required to deorbit debris, and the rocket equation makes launching all that propellant prohibitively expensive.
And while we can't do anything about the rocket equation, we don't actually need to have propellant in space to deorbit things.
Ways to deorbit without propellant in space:
1. The ground based methods. Although these would likely be seen by superpowers as military escalation of the status-quo.
2. Propulsion-less drone satellites. All propulsion-less designs use some form of sail which can be used to change the drone's orbit to match the debris before latching on and towing it to a new orbit. Once the debris is now in a decaying or graveyard orbit, the drone can detach and go after it's next target. All that is needed is time, power (readily accessible via solar power this close to the sun), and reaction wheels (which now we know what caused previous designs to fail like in the Kepler mission, can be built to last).
The most common form of sails would be solar sails, but there's also EDTs and magnetic sails.
Re: ESA report shows unsustainable levels of orbital debris
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
And make sure that even in the most unhappy cases, you vent your tanks! Vent vent vent vent! Tank explosions are where the really nasty debris numbers come from.
What do you do with the added deltaV from the venting? (not sure if significant) It could send the already-out of control rocket stage/object to a weirder or worse orbit, increasing the changes of collision.
Re: ESA report shows unsustainable levels of orbital debris
#36Active debris removal (harpoon satellites, magnet arms, whatever) are not a solution to this problem and are a huge waste of money. These missions answer the question "could one dock with debris and deorbit it?" To which the answer is "obviously yes, but at enormous cost" and you don't need to spend 50M euros to prove it. The answer is exactly what governments and industry have been doing for at least two decades now…
Starlink have a number of debris problems, including pieces hitting the ground, so I wouldn't say that they're actually following through with their good practices.
Re: ESA report shows unsustainable levels of orbital debris
#37Active debris removal (harpoon satellites, magnet arms, whatever) are not a solution to this problem and are a huge waste of money. These missions answer the question "could one dock with debris and deorbit it?" To which the answer is "obviously yes, but at enormous cost" and you don't need to spend 50M euros to prove it. The answer is exactly what governments and industry have been doing for at least two decades now…
Starlink have a number of debris problems, including pieces hitting the ground, so I wouldn't say that they're actually following through with their good practices.
Re: ESA report shows unsustainable levels of orbital debris
#38Active debris removal (harpoon satellites, magnet arms, whatever) are not a solution to this problem and are a huge waste of money. These missions answer the question "could one dock with debris and deorbit it?" To which the answer is "obviously yes, but at enormous cost" and you don't need to spend 50M euros to prove it. The answer is exactly what governments and industry have been doing for at least two decades now…
Active debris removal is almost at the level if being an experimental technology. If it works, and if it gets cheaper as the technology matures, it might let use remove derelict satellites before they break up into smaller pieces. It is usually easier to remove a few thousand big pieces of trash than to remove millions of small pieces of trash.
Re: ESA report shows unsustainable levels of orbital debris
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would not be attracting stationary objects, you would be attracting things flying past at tens of thousands of whatever unit per hour you like best. Gravity is nowhere near strong enough to affect these objects for purposes of collecting them.
You don't need to collect them, just perturb their orbit enough that they burn up in a reasonably short time. Still not viable I assume, but...
I guess the big problem is that it’d affect the intact satallites a lot more than the debris.