Profitable business rescuing space debris?

[PhilipSaunders]

I am doing research on the profitability of space debris. I would appreciate the serious input of any industry insiders on this forum.

Space debris is one of the most pressing problems that will hinder the future of spaceflight. Many solutions to the problem have been put forward, such as Star Inc.'s Electrodynamic Debris Eliminator, which basically destroys small debris from a distance using a laser. It can also use a set of arms to capture larger debris and drag it down to its destruction in the atmosphere. This kind of business could be profitable if NASA were willing to pay the company large amounts of money for doing them such a service.

However, as we all know, NASA can't be relied on for anything. I believe that the problem of space debris can be both tackled and profited from. Debris is extremely valuable both because of the high-grade materials like platinum and gold that go into them, and also for their sentimental value. Many would pay a high price for something that has been in space, like the meteorite trade. I do not however know whether the value would pay for the cost of the hardware (some of which is uninvented) and launching costs.

How difficult would it be to return debris to Earth in one piece? Could existing re-entry technology be merged with the hardware cheaply? Would it even be possible to process debris in orbit, then return it in its constituent parts?

Which launch company is the cheapest? Obviously the cheaper the better, in order to minimize overheads.

What is the most valuable constituent of space debris? For example, could empty rockets be recycled?

Again, input is appreciated. If you wish you can email me at philip.wex@gmail.com.

 

[SteveCNC]

It would be nice for NASA to fund such a project and at some point perhaps the joint space agencies of the world will unite to do just that but unfortunatly until it cost some lives or something else near as tramatic it won't happen . The recycleability of the space junk would not be for the rare metals used as it is plated on and dosen't really amount to that much perhaps as a novelty item it could be worth something up to the point where the market is flooded with space junk and no one cares anymore .

One problem with capturing space junk is that pretty much every piece would require it's own mission to retrieve due to the different altitudes and delta-v , it would take a lot of extra fuel to attempt to pick up 2 pieces which maybe if they are close enough to each other it could be done but that's about the limit for a single mission . Unless we come up with a highly maneuverable craft that stays in orbit but is able to go from LEO to GSO and back and still have fuel left over then maybe it could be done more easily but I don't think that will happen in my kids lifetimes let alone mine .

This does remind me of a tv show that ran in 79 called "Salvage 1" where a private junk yard owner build a rocket and started retrieving space junk for profit . Great show , I loved it though it's science was a bit off .

 

[EarthlingX]

An older thread, which might give some answers, or at least starting points :

SDC thread : Space Junk Cleanup - Innovation & Responsibility

PhilipSaunders, welcome to SDC

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Welcome to SDC. :mrgreen:
At present it would cost more to haul the fuel up to your orbital garbage truck than the value of what you can collect. Until there is an economical RLV it will continue to be that way.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Welcome to SDC. :mrgreen:
At present it would cost more to haul the fuel up to your orbital garbage truck than the value of what you can collect. Until there is an economical RLV it will continue to be that way.

Unless the garbage ship could launch and return to a space station so liftoff costs are extremely low. My guess is that they would circle the Earth at least a few times and pick up a few of the largest pieces of space debris. This combined with better regulation on the matter could reduce the amount of hazadrous debris in orbit.

Due to gravity though, won't most of the debris end up forming a halo around the Earth like the rings of the outer planets? If that were the case then the garbage ship wouldn't have to change altitude and delta-v as much, thereby saving money.

 

[MeteorWayne]

An older thread, which might give some answers, or at least starting points :

SDC thread : Space Junk Cleanup - Innovation & Responsibility

PhilipSaunders, welcome to SDC

I probably will merge this into that thread.

MW

Yuri, please spend a little time looking around before starting a new topic. That is suggested in the Community Guidelines, which you should read....

 

[rockett]

Unless the garbage ship could launch and return to a space station so liftoff costs are extremely low. My guess is that they would circle the Earth at least a few times and pick up a few of the largest pieces of space debris. This combined with better regulation on the matter could reduce the amount of hazadrous debris in orbit.

Due to gravity though, won't most of the debris end up forming a halo around the Earth like the rings of the outer planets? If that were the case then the garbage ship wouldn't have to change altitude and delta-v as much, thereby saving money.

Problem is fuel. Whatever your orbital garbage truck uses would have to be hauled up on a pretty continuous basis for ongoing space operations.

As for the halo turning into rings, you are talking hundreds of years (or more), by which time the orbits would have decayed anyway. Also smaller stuff will be harder to track down. Sorry, it will be a piece at a time operation for the forseeable future.

 

[samkent]

IMO

The real value in old sats would be in the metal. But when you calculate the weight and price per pound I’ll bet you come up with a few hundred dollars.

The electronics are just about worthless. Who wants 10 year old circuit boards working or not? Would you risk your new multi million dollar sat by sticking in a 10 year old $50 transmitter?

To sum it up. It’s called space junk for a reason.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Down here in Louisiana the government pays $5 for each nutria tail you bring in because they are such a nuisance. Maybe one day NASA will start paying such a bounty to people who could remove the debris.

 

[rockett]

It might be worthwhile someday if we get refining and manufacturing capacity in space. The core problem I see even with that is that the net worth of the recovered metal and other materials (after processing and fuel costs) would have to exceed the cost of putting the recovered material into orbit. The diffrence between the two being net profit.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

The debris won't really be worth anything. The incentive for private companies going after the debris would hopefully be a pay off from NASA or other space agencies. It may not be that big of a problem now, but if we're going to keep expanding into space then we will need to remove this hazardous space junk.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Ultimately large objects in space are not a huge issue. I say objects because man-made objects are not the only things we need to be worried about. They can be tracked and their trajectories calculated, thus allowing a spacecraft to move out of the way with maneuvering thrusters. There are also relatively few of them. If necessary a spacecraft can intercept them, but I really do not think that

The real problem lies in the small objects like those from the Chinese anti-Sat test and micrometeorites. These objects much more numerous than the larger objects, and they are more difficult to detect and track. Ultimately the best way to deal with such objects would be to use lasers to vaporize them. It is the only method that makes any economic sense.

I definitely see profitability in taking out small space debris with lasers. Moving large spacecraft in order to avoid a object the size of your fist is expensive. Take the ISS for example. It has a mass of almost a half a million kg. Moving all that mass consumes large amounts of fuel. Fuel costs money. It would definitely seem much cheaper if you had a laser satellite that would either vaporize it or push it out of the way using nothing but energy.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Yeah, the large objects aren't much of a threat. Using direct energy lasers to get rid of the tiny pieces of debris is probably the most cost effective way to do it. Only problem there is the red tape involved with the outer space treaty, which bans weapons in space. And to keep new space junk from coming about, there should be heavy fines levied on ships that lose parts in space. And nations should be banned from anti-sat tests, that was a pretty stupid idea I think. I heard it released thousands of mechanical parts into orbit.

 

[SteveCNC]

yeah if you want to knock out a satelite just drive a rocket up near it and hit it with an EMP , no need for debris .

 

[EarthlingX]

http://www.physorg.com : Giant nets could remove orbiting space junk

August 17, 2010
by Lisa Zyga


The white dots represent space debris that is currently being tracked by NASA. The dots are not scaled to Earth. Credit: NASA.

A dozen space vehicles, equipped with 200 nets each, could scoop up the space debris floating in low Earth orbit, clearing the way for a future space elevator. That’s the idea described last Friday at the annual Space Elevator conference by Star Inc., a company that is receiving funding for the project from DARPA.

Pearson predicts that, over a period of seven years, a dozen of Star Inc.’s Electrodynamic Debris Eliminator (EDDE) vehicles could potentially capture all 2,465 identified objects over 2 kilograms currently floating in low Earth orbit. After capturing the objects, the EDDEs could either fling them into the South Pacific, send them closer to Earth where they would eventually decay, or recycle the materials. As Pearson explained, the aluminum and other materials collected by the EDDEs could be used to build structures that could host crews or store equipment.

Star Inc. plans to launch test flights in 2013, and if everything goes well, could start removing trash in 2017. The company is also shifting the project from DARPA to NASA - and possibly later to the UN - to alleviate concerns that the EDDEs could be used for military purposes to remove enemy satellites from orbit.