5 ms·

Space Junk Solution? Tiny Cubesat to Test New De-Orbiting Thruster

pcprincipal 9y ago
Really pumped to see someone is working on this - going to be a massive problem that no major government appears to be gauging the seriousness of right now. Tim Urban of Wait But Why has a really good blog post that is an awesome overview of this issue: https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colon... Go to the Space Debris blue boxer specifically.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  I've recently read about numerous space-junk-related experiments funded by "major governments". And remember that these same governments have already agreed on a guideline for deorbiting. It doesn't appear to be tough enough yet, but there's a mechanism for working together on a better standard.
henrikf 9y ago
On the same PSLV C38 rocket was Aalto-1, a 3U cubesat that has electrostatic plasmabrake that is a different de-orbiting experiment. It uses 100 m long hair thin wire that is electrically charged and brakes the satellite by interaction with the ionosphere. https://www.electric-sailing.fi/papers/Plasmabrake.pdf https://www.electric-sailing.fi/papers/Plasmabrake.pdf It has an advantage of not needing any propellant and being very light weight but it doesn't work above the ionosphere. It should work for de-orbiting small satellites in LEO. The same principle should be possible to be used as a solar sail for interplanetary travel by interacting with the solar wind.
samstave 9y ago
Cant wait until, 45 years from now, when the first one of these are hacked and satellites are prematurely de-orbiting
- kortex 9y ago
  How's this any different than hacking the main satellite and causing it to deorbit?
  - samstave 9y ago
    If they could already do this, then wouldnt there already be a lot less space debris?
gravypod 9y ago
I'm pretty sure you don't need to de-orbit CubeSats manually. The drag on the satellite will slowly decay the orbit of CubeSats much faster then most satellites. We also already use "de-orbiting" systems in real satellites: we just burn their remaining fuel in the RCSs to either push them back into space (the normally talked about junk cloud) or we pull them into a decaying orbit (what already happens with CubeSats). The only reason this is done in the big-leagues is because the average "normal" satellite is about the size of a small car. A CubeSat will effectively be taken out by gravity/drift very quickly (most missions are 2 months to 2 years) and it is perfectly safe to do so. I don't see how this is a "Space Junk Solution" and from the article: > "The planned demonstration is an important milestone to develop and promote the use of this technology," Krag told Space.com. [Space Junk Explained: How Orbital Debris Threatens Future of Spaceflight (Infographic)] 1. This is already something we do 2. This is no needed in CubeSats
- Rotten194 9y ago
  I don't think the point is to deorbit cubesats, it's as an independent module to deorbit larger satellites.
- kortex 9y ago
  > That's where D3 comes in. The device has independent power supply and communication systems. That means that D3 can deorbit a satellite even if the rest of the spacecraft is completely unresponsive, D-Orbit representatives said. Totally independent system to provide redundancy for de-orbit in case control to the main satellite is lost, which is a problem.
  - RealFakeDoors 9y ago
    Yes, and D3 it's also an active removal sistem, that means that you can deorbit the satellite in pre selected locations and moment (like an ocean) in a matter of minutes, being in control of it. This does not happen when using tether or solar sail for deorbiting purpose and it may take years, depending on the orbit. Its basically the difference between parking a car and jumping out of it waiting for drag and friction to stop it.
CapitalistCartr 9y ago
There is a great newsletter from NASA about orbital debris called (with great flair) Orbital Debris Quarterly. https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/quarterly-news/newsletter.html/ https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/quarterly-news/newsletter...
WatchDog 9y ago
My orbital dynamics knowledge is informed almost entirely from kerbal space program, but since the majority of satellites orbit with an eccentricity close to 0, shouldnt it be fairly simple to just do a radial-out burn and crash into the atmosphere, which generally does not require a huge deal of fuel.
- db48x 9y ago
  Radial burns require more fuel than prograde/retrograde, and most satellites don't have enough fuel to deorbit. Geosynchronous satellites usually go to a higher orbit at their end of life, actually, since that's cheapest.
honestoHeminway 9y ago
why not use laser light to selectively de-accelerate sattelitsß

Really pumped to see someone is working on this - going to be a massive problem that no major government appears to be gauging the seriousness of right now. Tim Urban of Wait But Why has a really good blog post that is an awesome overview of this issue: https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colon... Go to the Space Debris blue boxer specifically.

greglindahl 9y ago
I've recently read about numerous space-junk-related experiments funded by "major governments". And remember that these same governments have already agreed on a guideline for deorbiting. It doesn't appear to be tough enough yet, but there's a mechanism for working together on a better standard.

henrikf 9y ago

On the same PSLV C38 rocket was Aalto-1, a 3U cubesat that has electrostatic plasmabrake that is a different de-orbiting experiment. It uses 100 m long hair thin wire that is electrically charged and brakes the satellite by interaction with the ionosphere. https://www.electric-sailing.fi/papers/Plasmabrake.pdf https://www.electric-sailing.fi/papers/Plasmabrake.pdf It has an advantage of not needing any propellant and being very light weight but it doesn't work above the ionosphere. It should work for de-orbiting small satellites in LEO. The same principle should be possible to be used as a solar sail for interplanetary travel by interacting with the solar wind.

samstave 9y ago

Cant wait until, 45 years from now, when the first one of these are hacked and satellites are prematurely de-orbiting

kortex 9y ago
How's this any different than hacking the main satellite and causing it to deorbit?
- samstave 9y ago
  If they could already do this, then wouldnt there already be a lot less space debris?

gravypod 9y ago

I'm pretty sure you don't need to de-orbit CubeSats manually. The drag on the satellite will slowly decay the orbit of CubeSats much faster then most satellites. We also already use "de-orbiting" systems in real satellites: we just burn their remaining fuel in the RCSs to either push them back into space (the normally talked about junk cloud) or we pull them into a decaying orbit (what already happens with CubeSats). The only reason this is done in the big-leagues is because the average "normal" satellite is about the size of a small car. A CubeSat will effectively be taken out by gravity/drift very quickly (most missions are 2 months to 2 years) and it is perfectly safe to do so. I don't see how this is a "Space Junk Solution" and from the article: > "The planned demonstration is an important milestone to develop and promote the use of this technology," Krag told Space.com. [Space Junk Explained: How Orbital Debris Threatens Future of Spaceflight (Infographic)] 1. This is already something we do 2. This is no needed in CubeSats

Rotten194 9y ago
I don't think the point is to deorbit cubesats, it's as an independent module to deorbit larger satellites.
kortex 9y ago
> That's where D3 comes in. The device has independent power supply and communication systems. That means that D3 can deorbit a satellite even if the rest of the spacecraft is completely unresponsive, D-Orbit representatives said. Totally independent system to provide redundancy for de-orbit in case control to the main satellite is lost, which is a problem.
- RealFakeDoors 9y ago
  Yes, and D3 it's also an active removal sistem, that means that you can deorbit the satellite in pre selected locations and moment (like an ocean) in a matter of minutes, being in control of it. This does not happen when using tether or solar sail for deorbiting purpose and it may take years, depending on the orbit. Its basically the difference between parking a car and jumping out of it waiting for drag and friction to stop it.

CapitalistCartr 9y ago

There is a great newsletter from NASA about orbital debris called (with great flair) Orbital Debris Quarterly. https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/quarterly-news/newsletter.html/ https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/quarterly-news/newsletter...

WatchDog 9y ago

My orbital dynamics knowledge is informed almost entirely from kerbal space program, but since the majority of satellites orbit with an eccentricity close to 0, shouldnt it be fairly simple to just do a radial-out burn and crash into the atmosphere, which generally does not require a huge deal of fuel.

db48x 9y ago
Radial burns require more fuel than prograde/retrograde, and most satellites don't have enough fuel to deorbit. Geosynchronous satellites usually go to a higher orbit at their end of life, actually, since that's cheapest.

honestoHeminway 9y ago

why not use laser light to selectively de-accelerate sattelitsß