Space Debris Solution: the "other" Project Orion

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

j05h

Guest
The proposed Orion space debris laser fits nicely with our recent problems of creating so much debris in LEO. It would be a single pulsed laser on an equatorial mountaintop capable of ridding LEO of hazards in 4 years. <br /> <br /> http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/orions_laser_hunting_space_debris.shtml<br /> <br /> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997SPIE.3092..728P<br /> <br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_broom<br /> <br /> http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3109525 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
E

earth_bound_misfit

Guest
Interesting stuff. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>
 
J

j05h

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Interesting stuff. <br /> Posted by earth_bound_misfit</DIV></p><p>It's simple, ground-based and uses existing technology. The increase in space debris thanks to Chinese and US ASATs and the recent Iridium-Cosmos collision make the prospect of a several year "sky cleaning" a compelling prospect.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p>Sounds like an excuse to develop anti-satellite laser&nbsp;technology under a obsensibly peaceful cover.</p><p>Who will control the technology, who will supervise those who use it?&nbsp;Who will ensure it is not used to active attack spacecraft?</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
R

rubicondsrv

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sounds like an excuse to develop anti-satellite laser&nbsp;technology under a obsensibly peaceful cover.Who will control the technology, who will supervise those who use it?&nbsp;Who will ensure it is not used to active attack spacecraft?Jon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV><br /><br />ASAT laser technology already exists.</p><p>the cat is out of the bag there.</p><p>who controls it?</p><p>whoever pays for it</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's simple, ground-based and uses existing technology. The increase in space debris thanks to Chinese and US ASATs and the recent Iridium-Cosmos collision make the prospect of a several year "sky cleaning" a compelling prospect.&nbsp; <br />Posted by j05h</DIV><br /><br />I'm a bit skeptical that the system could deliver what it says for the costs described.</p><p>However, I am not enough of an expert to evaluate the numbers. Do you have anything more recent than a dozen years ago that indicates this is a realistic idea?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>ASAT laser technology already exists.the cat is out of the bag there.who controls it?whoever pays for it <br />Posted by rubicondsrv</DIV></p><p>Really?&nbsp; Where are the ground stations?&nbsp; What operation tests have been carried?&nbsp; </p><p>Even tactical laser weapons beyond the dazzle type are experimental. Let alone antisatellite systems, which are much more challenging and difficult.</p><p>"Whoever pays for it" is not an adequate answer to my question.&nbsp; What safeguards and conventions with govern the use of such a system.&nbsp; Who will have oversight to make sure it it used only on space debris?</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm a bit skeptical that the system could deliver what it says for the costs described.However, I am not enough of an expert to evaluate the numbers. Do you have anything more recent than a dozen years ago that indicates this is a realistic idea? <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>The basic idea is proably at least 20 years old.&nbsp; Arthur Clarke mentions it in The Fountians of Paradise, so presumably it was round before then.</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sounds like an excuse to develop anti-satellite laser&nbsp;technology under a obsensibly peaceful cover.Who will control the technology, who will supervise those who use it?&nbsp;Who will ensure it is not used to active attack spacecraft?Jon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>There is a paragraph in the article claiming it isnt suitable for&nbsp;that purpose, though I guess there is some overlap:&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not an anti-satellite weapon </p><p>It is important to note that neither of these systems can even remotely be considered an anti-satellite weapon. In both cases the power is grossly inadequate for this purpose. If pointed at an average satellite , such a system would have to irradiate it continuously for many months before making major reductions in its perigee, and four years before damaging its structure. Optical sensors aboard some spacecraft could be damaged if they looked at the laser and the laser were simultaneously illuminating the spacecraft, but simple avoidance of such pointing by the spacecraft will ensure that this does not occur. An Orion system would also avoid irradiating satellites by simple inhibition of radiation when they are in its field of view. This is current doctrine and practice in laser operation and tests. </DIV></p><p>Actually, preventing satellites from looking closely at certain locations sounds like it would have applications.</p>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p>Yes, it is good to know that at, at least inprinciple a debris clearing laser neednot be a anti-satellite weapon.</p><p>That is why the identity of who funds and controls the development is important.&nbsp; It it were the military, then I would see it as potentially a cover for space weaponry.&nbsp; It it were a civilian agency, then it would be more likely to legitimate. </p><p>Technology and organisations to deal with space debris will ave to be created sooner or later.&nbsp; Much as we have agencies who deal with naviagtion hazards at sea.</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
J

job1207

Guest
<p>ASAT laser technology is on the shelf. No problem there. If someone else demonstrates it, the US will roll it out, AGAIN. They did so about 6-8 years ago. I remember the news report. They also said that the shot was not successful, although they reported that the target was hit with a certain amount of energy that made it clear that the laser did indeed work. So, I would not worry about that. </p><p>Now, if this works then they will wind up using it for that, in time.&nbsp; </p>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>ASAT laser technology is on the shelf. No problem there. If someone else demonstrates it, the US will roll it out, AGAIN. They did so about 6-8 years ago. I remember the news report. They also said that the shot was not successful, although they reported that the target was hit with a certain amount of energy that made it clear that the laser did indeed work. So, I would not worry about that. Now, if this works then they will wind up using it for that, in time.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by job1207</DIV></p><p>I would think the biggest problems are focusing on extremely small bits of debris and even having an effect on objects that reflect, rather then absorb the fequencies used.</p><p>The only clear way to keep the problem from getting worse, not even dealing with existing problems, is to agree to deorbit upper stages and unusable vehicles safely so they don't become a problem. If we can stop the increase we may be able to figure out how to deal with the existing debris.</p><p>It seems rather ironic we could trap ourselves on this Planet by making it too dangerous to get off of it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
<p>One small good thing, at least this problem will be much more serious for commercial satelites than manned missions to the moon (or mars) that only spend a handful of days in danger.</p><p>This&nbsp;probably means appropriate&nbsp;money will be spent to keep this problem in check, whether it is lasers in space or lawyers on earth.</p>
 
A

aphh

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It seems rather ironic we could trap ourselves on this Planet by making it too dangerous to get off of it. <br /> Posted by scottb50</DIV></p><p>We need to stop polluting space. Period.</p><p>It is not just our space, but belongs to future generations aswell. This same mentality of littering historical sites with debris is all too prevalent in planetary and even current moon exploration.</p><p>We need to stop slamming things into planets and the moon and polluting historical sites. Anything we send up has to be in the form that can be picked up and put into a trash can later.&nbsp; </p>
 
J

j05h

Guest
<p>The pulsed laser creates very intense bursts of heating and due to pulsed nature the target's albedo is largely irrelevant. </p><p>&nbsp;This is not ASAT technology - it's vastly underpowered for that and actual laser ASAT tech is already available (to an extent).</p><p>&nbsp;The proposed space debris system could be US/NASA administered or otherwise - it doesn't much matter to me since the critical&nbsp; issue is dealing w/ debris quickly and effectively before we trap ourselves below LEO. The recent ASAT one-upmanship and Iridium-Cosmos collision have accelerated the problem and the Orion/"laser broom" approach is the only one I'm aware of that is viable for dealing with the problem.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
S

samkent

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We need to stop polluting space. Period.It is not just our space, but belongs to future generations aswell. This same mentality of littering historical sites with debris is all too prevalent in planetary and even current moon exploration.We need to stop slamming things into planets and the moon and polluting historical sites. Anything we send up has to be in the form that can be picked up and put into a trash can later.&nbsp; <br />Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>Wouldn't picking up the trash cost as much as putting it there? Who's going to pay for it?? How would you propose to bring back all of the Apollo hardware left behind? The whole concept reminds me of the flower children of the sixties. The whole solar system belongs to humanity and we can drop a few tons of metal where ever we chose.</p>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wouldn't picking up the trash cost as much as putting it there? Who's going to pay for it?? How would you propose to bring back all of the Apollo hardware left behind? The whole concept reminds me of the flower children of the sixties. The whole solar system belongs to humanity and we can drop a few tons of metal where ever we chose. <br /> Posted by samkent</DIV></p><p>We run the risk of trapping ourselves on Earth by making it too dangerous to venture through LEO. On the other hand it would be a good defense if aliens ever attack, an LEO mine field. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

j05h

Guest
Re:

The dangers of space debris should be apparent. An Orion laser system or similar would cost much less than flying up and picking up the debris. Almost all debris issues are inside geosynchronous orbit, primarily down in LEO. Luckily that is all within range of Earth-based and powered lasers. Cleaning up LEO is becoming imperative. If a "laser broom" does not work then we need another answer. Otherwise this system should be implemented ASAP - pick your institution/agency/whatever but get it built and working.

We had this same issue with SpaceGuard (asteroid spotting). No government agency wanted ownership of the issue since it is so remote in chances and so devastating if it happens. So amateurs (astronomers and Planetary Society) started their own systematic observation program. Eventually the Air Force opened up and dedicated a telescope to the effort. Its not enough monitoring but better than the old situation. If we get rocked at least we can say "We were looking but missed that one." - the same goes for cleaning up LEO.
 
J

job1207

Guest
Today Socrates predicts a conjunction of space debris just FIVE meters away. Fortunately, the relative velocity is 1 meter per second. Nevertheless, unacceptably close conjunctions between non functional space debris occur every day. Look at Socrates every day for a week, and you will see conjunctions under a kilometer almost every day. So much for the concept that SPACE is so large it does not matter.

http://celestrak.com/cgi-bin/searchSOCRATES.pl
 
S

samkent

Guest
Here’s my take on the laser broom idea. It won’t work.

Reason(s)
I think some have it in their mind that it will “vaporize” the debris. Well maybe, the small stuff. But that same vapor will become an expanding dust cloud. Do this a hundred times and what do you have? A dust belt. I hope flying through a dust belt will be less of a hazard than individual small pieces. Because you will be much more likely to hit the cloud than the small pieces.

As to the larger stuff, think through what will happen. The side facing the laser will heat up. At some point some part of that side will off gas, the early stage of vaporizing. This area is not likely to be the center of mass for the entire piece. The result will be rotation around the center of mass of the entire piece. If this piece is an entire satellite, the accelerating rotation is surely going to fling off sections into new orbits. More debris to put on the vaporize list.

What happens when the laser beam hits a highly polished surface? ie solar panels. There will be multiple reflections of a high power laser beam sweeping through an arc. Sooner or later one of these beams are going to take out some ones optical sensor. Or even an astronauts eyeballs while he uses binoculars to see his home town.
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
A dust belt wouldnt be so much a hazard as a constant wear, I expect. I have actually wondered if that could be a solution: Launch dust in a reverse orbit so it creates a tiny friction that is merely a wear on satellites but quickly decelerates paint flecks etc. (smaller objects have a much larger surface to mass ratio). That wear could become quite a nuisance though, I suppose.

I think reflected laser light would not be any danger. Even if the surface was a perfect mirror it would be very unlikely to focus the beam back at any one spot for more that a tiniest fraction of a second. Also the beam itself might only be focused at the range of the target.

The spinning and creating more shrapnel seems a reasonable concern. I guess so long as you keep working on the smallest pieces first you will be consistently removing mass from orbit while not escalating the fragments in orbit beyond a constant margin.
 
S

samkent

Guest
Operators of Hubble and Kepler might think that constant dust wear is a problem.

Correct me if I’m wrong on the next point.
If a laser beam starts out 3 feet wide on the ground and is focused to 6 inches wide at a range of 250 miles. Wouldn’t it take another 250 miles to spread back to 3 feet? Even at 3 feet wide it is likely to set paper on fire if it were on the ground. Would you want that much laser power flashing in your eyes through binoculars? Even if it’s the shortest period of time. I suspect Hubble and Kepler would be permanently damaged by it.
Plus it would require constant attention from ground personnel to chose and aim for it’s next target.

I still favor the big blob in orbit.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
It's irrelevant for Kepler, since it will be a million miles from earth....
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
samkent":123nh8pe said:
Operators of Hubble and Kepler might think that constant dust wear is a problem.

Correct me if I’m wrong on the next point.
If a laser beam starts out 3 feet wide on the ground and is focused to 6 inches wide at a range of 250 miles. Wouldn’t it take another 250 miles to spread back to 3 feet? Even at 3 feet wide it is likely to set paper on fire if it were on the ground. Would you want that much laser power flashing in your eyes through binoculars? Even if it’s the shortest period of time. I suspect Hubble and Kepler would be permanently damaged by it.
Plus it would require constant attention from ground personnel to chose and aim for it’s next target.

I still favor the big blob in orbit.

Yes, that constant wear issue might well kill that other idea I mentioned.

As for the laser beam spreading, yes if it hit an absolutely perfect and also planar mirror then I guess it would behave as you say. Im not an expert but it seems like common sense. We are not talking about a merely shiny piece of metal however and we are also not talking about a high quality but curved mirror. We are also not talking about a beam that has passed through the atmosphere. Those all have zero chance of being well focussed, obviously. We are only talking about a beam hitting this perfect mirror and then possibly hitting an astronaut's eye or a camera in space, some hundred or so kilometers away.

Supposing these 3-feet vs 6 inch numbers then in this case, the intensity is still 36 times less. Thats got to help.

But most of all, the beam has to dwell for some real time on the target. You could have a beam that cut through an inch of steel in a second (certainly not what they mean here) and still it would be of very little risk. At the range of any possible target it is probably sweeping through space at tens of kilometers per second, which would mean the time spent in any three foot (say one meter) area is a fraction of one ten thousandth of a second.
 
J

job1207

Guest
Is anyone SERIOUSLY funding this issue?? If not, they should be doing so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts