Comments on: Space Junk 1: Science 0 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/20/space-junk-1-science-0/ Random samplings from a universe of ideas. Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:52:54 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Science 1: Space Junk 0? | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/20/space-junk-1-science-0/comment-page-1/#comment-64793 Science 1: Space Junk 0? | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine Sun, 01 Mar 2009 04:45:19 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/20/space-junk-1-science-0/#comment-64793 [...] due to the recent satellite collision. Naturally, those of us who know and love Hubble were a tad concerned about this latest development, which would probably have led to a complete shutdown of the [...] [...] due to the recent satellite collision. Naturally, those of us who know and love Hubble were a tad concerned about this latest development, which would probably have led to a complete shutdown of the [...]

]]> By: Eugene http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/20/space-junk-1-science-0/comment-page-1/#comment-64101 Eugene Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:01:05 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/20/space-junk-1-science-0/#comment-64101 Paul : hindsight is 20-20. More seriously, it's kinda hard to design stuff "to be easily serviced with robots", especially given the long timescale of space programs, you don't really know what robots can do in the future. Paul : hindsight is 20-20. More seriously, it’s kinda hard to design stuff “to be easily serviced with robots”, especially given the long timescale of space programs, you don’t really know what robots can do in the future.

]]> By: Paul Murray http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/20/space-junk-1-science-0/comment-page-1/#comment-64097 Paul Murray Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:36:19 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/20/space-junk-1-science-0/#comment-64097 How about designing future big expensive things so that they can easily be serviced with robots? You know - build it all out of meccano, supply it with some robots that can walk along and manipulate meccano. If something important gets damages, disassemble podule C (Prof Jones' experiment - stuff him) and use the mecanno to rebuild something more important. How about designing future big expensive things so that they can easily be serviced with robots? You know – build it all out of meccano, supply it with some robots that can walk along and manipulate meccano. If something important gets damages, disassemble podule C (Prof Jones’ experiment – stuff him) and use the mecanno to rebuild something more important.

]]> By: Kevin Conod http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/20/space-junk-1-science-0/comment-page-1/#comment-64032 Kevin Conod Sun, 22 Feb 2009 04:24:14 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/20/space-junk-1-science-0/#comment-64032 >Anyone yet contact Waste Management about a near-earth orbit week day junk pick-up >contract?? Has anyone contacted Adam Quark? I bet United Galaxies Sanitation would take the contract! ;-) >Anyone yet contact Waste Management about a near-earth orbit week day junk pick-up >contract??

Has anyone contacted Adam Quark? I bet United Galaxies Sanitation would take the contract! ;-)

]]> By: Low Math, Meekly Interacting http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/20/space-junk-1-science-0/comment-page-1/#comment-64019 Low Math, Meekly Interacting Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:39:32 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/20/space-junk-1-science-0/#comment-64019 Check out the simulation near the bottom of this page: http://www.soton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2009/feb/09_18.shtml I'm assuming the collision that actually happened created a more extensive debris cloud. Check out the simulation near the bottom of this page:

http://www.soton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2009/feb/09_18.shtml

I’m assuming the collision that actually happened created a more extensive debris cloud.

]]> By: Low Math, Meekly Interacting http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/20/space-junk-1-science-0/comment-page-1/#comment-64018 Low Math, Meekly Interacting Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:31:10 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/20/space-junk-1-science-0/#comment-64018 I think what made this one particularly notable is that both objects were put up there in specific orbits deliberately, and even though one was defunct, and had probably drifted, both were intact, large, and presumably easily trackable. Yet no one had any idea this was going to happen, apparently. At the least, we can be pretty sure the Iridium people were clueless. I think what made this one particularly notable is that both objects were put up there in specific orbits deliberately, and even though one was defunct, and had probably drifted, both were intact, large, and presumably easily trackable. Yet no one had any idea this was going to happen, apparently. At the least, we can be pretty sure the Iridium people were clueless.

]]> By: Eugene http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/20/space-junk-1-science-0/comment-page-1/#comment-64016 Eugene Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:17:33 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/20/space-junk-1-science-0/#comment-64016 Just a couple of things from an ex-spacecraft engineer (turned physicist) : 1) the recent Iridium collision was *not* the first time an in-space accidental collision has occured. The first was in 1996, between a piece of some unidentified debris (believed to be jettison booster stage) and CERISE, a french microsatellite designed to listen to military chatter. The CERISE is gravity gradient stabilized, with a 4 meter long boom. The boom was chopped off in the collision, and the spacecraft started to tumble. But everything else on the spacecraft was still working, and mission controllers managed to stabilize it with active controls. I am partial to this because I actually worked in SSTL, who built CERISE. 2) Robotic repairs of Hubble. This is pretty nuts engineering wise. The difficulties that an actual astronaut faced to replace any item on the HST is enough to tell me that this robotic mission is probably wishful thinking by NASA at best, a smokescreen at worse. (On the other hand, if they are just going to fix those momentum wheels, they might be able to slap something quickly and dock it (somehow) with HST. Just a couple of things from an ex-spacecraft engineer (turned physicist) :

1) the recent Iridium collision was *not* the first time an in-space accidental collision has occured. The first was in 1996, between a piece of some unidentified debris (believed to be jettison booster stage) and CERISE, a french microsatellite designed to listen to military chatter. The CERISE is gravity gradient stabilized, with a 4 meter long boom. The boom was chopped off in the collision, and the spacecraft started to tumble. But everything else on the spacecraft was still working, and mission controllers managed to stabilize it with active controls. I am partial to this because I actually worked in SSTL, who built CERISE.

2) Robotic repairs of Hubble. This is pretty nuts engineering wise. The difficulties that an actual astronaut faced to replace any item on the HST is enough to tell me that this robotic mission is probably wishful thinking by NASA at best, a smokescreen at worse. (On the other hand, if they are just going to fix those momentum wheels, they might be able to slap something quickly and dock it (somehow) with HST.

]]> By: Low Math, Meekly Interacting http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/20/space-junk-1-science-0/comment-page-1/#comment-64006 Low Math, Meekly Interacting Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:36:38 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/20/space-junk-1-science-0/#comment-64006 Thanks for the reminder, Stan. Thanks for the reminder, Stan.

]]> By: Odani of the Senate http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/20/space-junk-1-science-0/comment-page-1/#comment-63974 Odani of the Senate Sat, 21 Feb 2009 05:06:42 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/20/space-junk-1-science-0/#comment-63974 Oh, there you scientists go again, exaggerating dangers and scare-mongering in general. Why, me & Ronnie look at the sky all the time and never see any space "junk". If you scientist types didn't insist that everything should travel at 17,000 miles per hour or faster then there wouldn't be any problem at all. Want to fix the problem? Y'know, all we have to do is just cut taxes & then everything will be OK* *well, we might want to fight a war or two, 'specially if there's lots of petroleum there. Oh, there you scientists go again, exaggerating dangers and scare-mongering in general. Why, me & Ronnie look at the sky all the time and never see any space “junk”. If you scientist types didn’t insist that everything should travel at 17,000 miles per hour or faster then there wouldn’t be any problem at all. Want to fix the problem? Y’know, all we have to do is just cut taxes & then everything will be OK*

*well, we might want to fight a war or two, ’specially if there’s lots of petroleum there.

]]> By: Tony V MD http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/20/space-junk-1-science-0/comment-page-1/#comment-63971 Tony V MD Sat, 21 Feb 2009 03:27:23 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/20/space-junk-1-science-0/#comment-63971 I did a little reading on the Kessler syndroma and found it fascinating. My knowledge of nuclear physics is miniscule, but is anybody else reminded of sub-critical nuclear reactions in this scenario ? I did a little reading on the Kessler syndroma and found it fascinating. My knowledge of nuclear physics is miniscule, but is anybody else reminded of sub-critical nuclear reactions in this scenario ?

]]>