Comments on: The Space Debris Collision Problem http://metamodern.com/2009/03/03/the-space-debris-collision-problem/ The Trajectory of Technology Thu, 02 Feb 2012 01:15:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Erin http://metamodern.com/2009/03/03/the-space-debris-collision-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-665 Erin Fri, 06 Mar 2009 03:52:37 +0000 http://metamodern.com/?p=2170#comment-665 Eric, will this interfer with space elevator type plans, if society actually went forth to build such a thing? What is your view on the idea of building diamondoid or fullerene space elevators and tower systems? Is it futile as compared to other means or does it have validity? There is a great new book out by the way all about solar sail systems, and there is a section on emerging technologies that gets into molecular manufacturing and nanomaterials and how they can be used for solar sail craft. Your work is ofcourse mentioned. Eric, will this interfer with space elevator type plans, if society actually went forth to build such a thing? What is your view on the idea of building diamondoid or fullerene space elevators and tower systems? Is it futile as compared to other means or does it have validity? There is a great new book out by the way all about solar sail systems, and there is a section on emerging technologies that gets into molecular manufacturing and nanomaterials and how they can be used for solar sail craft. Your work is ofcourse mentioned.

]]> By: Nex6 http://metamodern.com/2009/03/03/the-space-debris-collision-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-651 Nex6 Wed, 04 Mar 2009 23:42:22 +0000 http://metamodern.com/?p=2170#comment-651 I think this a huge problem, and we should not be ignoring it and hoping for the best. we should be looking at any and all solutions. all space faring nations should be helping to solve the problem. maybe if we had some kind of robotic craft, that could attach, or push junk into a declining orbit and have it burn up... -nex6 I think this a huge problem, and we should not be ignoring it and hoping for the best. we should be looking at any and all solutions.

all space faring nations should be helping to solve the problem.
maybe if we had some kind of robotic craft, that could attach, or push
junk into a declining orbit and have it burn up…

-nex6

]]> By: Chris Phoenix http://metamodern.com/2009/03/03/the-space-debris-collision-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-635 Chris Phoenix Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:26:44 +0000 http://metamodern.com/?p=2170#comment-635 Most of the debris are not entire satellites. I'm suspicious of an argument that says "We can't do this thing that we don't need to do anyway, so we won't do the other thing that might help." What are the political reasons for not developing lasers? Most of the debris are not entire satellites. I’m suspicious of an argument that says “We can’t do this thing that we don’t need to do anyway, so we won’t do the other thing that might help.” What are the political reasons for not developing lasers?

]]> By: Eric Drexler http://metamodern.com/2009/03/03/the-space-debris-collision-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-634 Eric Drexler Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:52:35 +0000 http://metamodern.com/?p=2170#comment-634 @ Stephen Bauer -- The problem isn’t what comes down (which is an insignificant amount compared to natural meteoritic material) but what stays in orbit and poses an increasing collision risk to near-Earth spacecraft. Many small pieces pose a greater hazard than a few large ones, hence the problem created by ongoing fragmentation. @ Phil -- The principle is sound, but to quote the <i>Science</i> article, “The use of ground-based lasers to perturb the orbits of the satellites is not now practical because of the considerable mass of the satellites and the consequent need to deposit extremely high amounts of energy on the vehicles to effect the necessary orbital changes.” @ Stephen Bauer — The problem isn’t what comes down (which is an insignificant amount compared to natural meteoritic material) but what stays in orbit and poses an increasing collision risk to near-Earth spacecraft. Many small pieces pose a greater hazard than a few large ones, hence the problem created by ongoing fragmentation.

@ Phil — The principle is sound, but to quote the Science article,

“The use of ground-based lasers to perturb the orbits of the satellites is not now practical because of the considerable mass of the satellites and the consequent need to deposit extremely high amounts of energy on the vehicles to effect the necessary orbital changes.”

]]> By: Phil http://metamodern.com/2009/03/03/the-space-debris-collision-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-632 Phil Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:08:41 +0000 http://metamodern.com/?p=2170#comment-632 I have heard very little lately about the idea of using a ground-based pulsed laser to carefully ablate and de-orbit much of this debris. This idea was studied some years ago, and seems like a very good technique for clearing out, without any need for vehicles at all. I have heard very little lately about the idea of using a ground-based pulsed laser to carefully ablate and de-orbit much of this debris. This idea was studied some years ago, and seems like a very good technique for clearing out, without any need for vehicles at all.

]]> By: Stephen Bauer http://metamodern.com/2009/03/03/the-space-debris-collision-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-630 Stephen Bauer Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:51:55 +0000 http://metamodern.com/?p=2170#comment-630 Eric, Is this meaning that over then next 20-30 years that all the satellites and junk in space is going to add up and crash down upon us? Eric,
Is this meaning that over then next 20-30 years that all the satellites and junk in space is going to add up and crash down upon us?

]]>