Space junk is a serious problem.....

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
The International Space Station has had to do slight orbital corrections to avoid space junk several times. We need a way to sweep it up and the major players are well aware and working on it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

mothcorrupteth

Old Whig Monarchist, Classically Realpolitik
Jun 3, 2017
498
439
38
Huntsville, AL
✟42,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Space junk is a problem no matter how big the object is. When even a penny is going 17,000 mph, it's going to do damage against whatever it hits.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Space junk is a problem no matter how big the object is. When even a penny is going 17,000 mph, it's going to do damage against whatever it hits.

It seems like it's going to get a lot worse as private companies get into the act.
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
The International Space Station has had to do slight orbital corrections to avoid space junk several times. We need a way to sweep it up and the major players are well aware and working on it.
I thought space was a vacuum. Isn't it self cleaning? :idea:
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Until they lose their GPS & weather satellites...

Well, losing a weather satellite is a possibility, but I doubt it would be possible to take out the whole GPS system with a single collision. That would take something like a Carrington class solar flare.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Well, losing a weather satellite is a possibility, but I doubt it would be possible to take out the whole GPS system with a single collision. That would take something like a Carrington class solar flare.
The greater the satellite density, the more likely a single collision can produce Kessler syndrome.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,523
9,492
✟236,348.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Space junk is a problem no matter how big the object is. When even a penny is going 17,000 mph, it's going to do damage against whatever it hits.
Except that with nearly everything going in more or less the same direction at more or less the same speed, the velocity difference is highly likely to be very much less by an order of magnitude or two.
 
Upvote 0

mothcorrupteth

Old Whig Monarchist, Classically Realpolitik
Jun 3, 2017
498
439
38
Huntsville, AL
✟42,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Except that with nearly everything going in more or less the same direction at more or less the same speed, the velocity difference is highly likely to be very much less by an order of magnitude or two.
Correct--for things that are already in orbit. But for things we're sending there or elsewhere? The relative velocities are much greater in the interval immediately following launch. And that's ultimately why it's the concern it is. It could be that we accumulate too much space junk before we have the chance to found a lunar colony, from which it would be much easier to launch collection missions for the space junk we do have.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,523
9,492
✟236,348.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Correct--for things that are already in orbit. But for things we're sending there or elsewhere? The relative velocities are much greater in the interval immediately following launch. And that's ultimately why it's the concern it is. It could be that we accumulate too much space junk before we have the chance to found a lunar colony, from which it would be much easier to launch collection missions for the space junk we do have.
By the time any craft reaches an orbital altitude it has - in all practical instances - an orbital velocity.

What is a concern would be any satellites on elliptical orbits, or those on prominently non-equatorial orbits. In these, less common, instances closing velocities could approach the number that originally concerned you.

Also, when two large objects collide, it creates a lot of debris that has a very different new velocity
This is a major issue. (It need not be two large objects.)
 
Upvote 0

mothcorrupteth

Old Whig Monarchist, Classically Realpolitik
Jun 3, 2017
498
439
38
Huntsville, AL
✟42,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
By the time any craft reaches an orbital altitude it has - in all practical instances - an orbital velocity.
An orbital speed, yes, but not necessarily an orbital velocity.

In the case of craft passing orbital altitude to other destinations, the direction of travel is roughly perpendicular to the path of orbiting debris. This means that the relative (horizontal or vertical) velocity would be approaching 17,000 mph. The odds of any one small object colliding with an outbound craft, each heading roughly 17,000 mph on perpendicular trajectories, are low, but they increase with the number of objects we have out there.

In the case of a craft entering orbit, it's true that the vehicle is arcing into a orbital pathway and so is slowly matching the same direction as objects already in that orbit... BUT there are high and low orbits. And until a craft reaches the path of a high orbit it's crossing at an angle through space that may contain objects in a low orbit--admittedly, at less than 17,000 mph relative velocity, but still very fast, depending on the angle. And to give you an idea of those angles, a low-Earth orbit is 1,200 mi altitude, and a geostationary orbit is about 22,000 mi. You would have to arc very sharply into the horizontal axis to match the velocity of debris in low orbit.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,523
9,492
✟236,348.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
In the case of craft passing orbital altitude to other destinations, the direction of travel is roughly perpendicular to the path of orbiting debris.
This is incorrect. By the time a vehicle is approaching LEO it is already moving roughly parallel to the Earth's surface. Most (all?) satellites destined for higher orbit, even if they are going there directly, are crossing LEO at a slight angle. Many of them are parked in LEO while systems are checked before further burns take them to their intended orbit.
 
Upvote 0

mothcorrupteth

Old Whig Monarchist, Classically Realpolitik
Jun 3, 2017
498
439
38
Huntsville, AL
✟42,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
This is incorrect. By the time a vehicle is approaching LEO it is already moving roughly parallel to the Earth's surface. Most (all?) satellites destined for higher orbit, even if they are going there directly, are crossing LEO at a slight angle. Many of them are parked in LEO while systems are checked before further burns take them to their intended orbit.
I suppose this is what I get for trusting Kurzgesagt after their little kerfluffle earlier this year. Do you have any resources?
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,523
9,492
✟236,348.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I suppose this is what I get for trusting Kurzgesagt after their little kerfluffle earlier this year. Do you have any resources?
I had never heard of Kurzgesagt till now. (And have no idea what kerfuffle you are referring to.) From what I can see they produce You Tube videos. Correct? I tend not to trust You Tube videos unless they are TED Talks, Richard Feynman lectures, or instructions on laying a patio.

Resources? If you can narrow down your field of interest I may be able to suggest a relevant book or website.

Please note I am not seeking to diminish the considerable problem presented by the material we have in orbit. Rather the reverse. It makes little difference to your life expectancy if you are hit on the head by an electric toaster travelling at 170 mph, or one travelling at 17,000 mph. Indeed, when the latter figure is emphasised for dramatic purposes (or through ignorance) by the press it is likely to reduce the concern people feel when presented with more realistic numbers.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mothcorrupteth

Old Whig Monarchist, Classically Realpolitik
Jun 3, 2017
498
439
38
Huntsville, AL
✟42,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
I had never heard of Kurzgesagt till now. (And have no idea what kerfuffle you are referring to.) From what I can see they produce You Tube videos. Correct? I tend not to trust You Tube videos unless they are TED Talks, Richard Feynman lectures, or instructions on laying a patio.
The kerfluffle. About six months ago, Kurzgesagt suddenly releases an episode titled, "Can You Trust Kurzgesagt?" explaining why they were pulling two of their earlier videos for inaccuracies. Only a few hours later, another channel called Coffee Break did a hasty exposé accusing Kurzgesagt of having rushed out the episode to get ahead of one that Coffee Break was producing regarding the two videos in question.

Resources? If you can narrow down your field of interest I may be able to suggest a relevant book or website.
Well, specifically, where did you learn the bit about stopping in LEO before proceeding up to GEO? I know about transfer orbits, but what I've seen on them always shows them starting on the shallower curve of the ellipsis, which implied to me that they shot for apogee straight from launch.
 
Upvote 0