5 ms·

Is it not reasonable to put a laser on a satellite with targeting systems to shoot some of this stuff? It seems like that would be ideal, no ammo needed, no sup

Is it not reasonable to put a laser on a satellite with targeting systems to shoot some of this stuff? It seems like that would be ideal, no ammo needed, no super big nets or propellant (or less anyways). If you target a bigger piece on one side it could cause a reaction to push it towards earth. If it's a small piece, it may disintegrate it. If it's spinning, it may alter it's orbit to eventually fall, etc... Is this an unreasonable concept? I know this stuff is hard to find, but here we have a data showing we know where some of it is, and add some radar/lidar/whatever-dar to the satelite and get it a shootin. And no, I don't think a spacebased laser for shooting junk could harm anything planetside.

losteric 9y ago
Energy is the bottleneck. Lasers don't provide that much kinetic energy... so you're either briefly firing a powerful laser or continuously firing a small laser. The other energy cost is movement, I don't know how often the satellite would have to move to find debris but the larger satellite has more mass while the smaller one has to expend energy to match debris orbits. Works in theory, but it seems impractical to me.
- RobertRoberts 9y ago
  Consider the output of gases from the material being vaporized, that is the thrust/kinetic energy. I don't know the math or the engineering behind lasers to know range, but I suspect in space, it's a lot further than on earth. And possibly cooling is less of an issue? (doubt it though) Also, rotating mirrors would aim laser, not rotating the satellite. If cleverly done, could point any direction. All day solar power not enough energy?
  - losteric 9y ago
    Cooling would be more of an issue in the vacuum of space. Even my little engraving laser requires water cooling, that satellite would be covered in radiators. Don't forget the targeting system needs power and cooling too. Mirrors... Shooting from above is the "cleanest" shot. Hitting debris at an angle will change the debris orbital path (non-deterministic for rotating junk) until it re-enters the atmosphere. That's a risk for space control, which relies on predictable orbits. Capacitors are a solution if the laser requires far more energy than the solar panels, but that lowers the cleanup rate of one satellite. Like I said, the idea works. However, there are tradeoffs between price and results - I don't know that there's a practical balance.
    - RobertRoberts 9y ago
      Sure, the cooling thing I suspected, only because of reading about space suits a long time ago. Are there no lasers that don't require cooling? Of course this is all theory, doesn't every good solution start with a theory, then a poorly functioning prototype before you ever get something truly useful?
petre 9y ago
Impractical and it only makes matters worse since it can turn bigger debris into multiple smaller ones. Rather than shoot stuff with a laser, why not use a vehicle that generates a magnetic field and at least collects feromagnetic debris in one place. Then throw the whole thing into the atmosphere to burn and crash in an unpopulated area.
- RobertRoberts 9y ago
  Lots of debris is likely not magnetic, and much of this stuff is miles away from eachother traveling at incredible speeds. You couldn't make a device fast enough to change direction and have enough magnetic force to capture much. >...it only makes matters worse since it can turn bigger debris into multiple smaller ones. That's the question, would it though? Real lasers don't behave like hollywood lasers. And are smaller pieces worse than large ones? Maybe the type of material could be detected, and laser based cleaning would work perfectly well with some types of material?
  - petre 9y ago
    I suspect a laser would melt and cut up debris. Void is an insulator and the only way to dissipate heat is through radiation. Smaller pieces are worse because they're more numerous if you break up a bigger piece and harder to spot and avoid. Also the probability of a crash increases with the number of debris.
    - RobertRoberts 9y ago
      Sure, but my understanding is that there are so many micrometeors already, they can't leave windows open to space for any extended period of time. There's already tiny particles flying around that they can't do a think about about. This implies that more small stuff shouldn't matter in the least, as they already have no choice but to have protection against this. That means, there is a size small enough that it's no longer an issue. For someone knowledgable, I think it's simple to determine a ratio of size/speed/material type to determine whether or not to shoot the object with a laser or some other method.
GCU-Empiricist 9y ago
That might e taken as a violation of UN Space treaty. Depends on how weapons of mass destruction is defined in the treaty.
- RobertRoberts 9y ago
  I'd imagine dynamite is dangerous as well, but it's used for construction and building projects. Maybe an exception could be made...

losteric 9y ago

Energy is the bottleneck. Lasers don't provide that much kinetic energy... so you're either briefly firing a powerful laser or continuously firing a small laser. The other energy cost is movement, I don't know how often the satellite would have to move to find debris but the larger satellite has more mass while the smaller one has to expend energy to match debris orbits. Works in theory, but it seems impractical to me.

RobertRoberts 9y ago
Consider the output of gases from the material being vaporized, that is the thrust/kinetic energy. I don't know the math or the engineering behind lasers to know range, but I suspect in space, it's a lot further than on earth. And possibly cooling is less of an issue? (doubt it though) Also, rotating mirrors would aim laser, not rotating the satellite. If cleverly done, could point any direction. All day solar power not enough energy?
- losteric 9y ago
  Cooling would be more of an issue in the vacuum of space. Even my little engraving laser requires water cooling, that satellite would be covered in radiators. Don't forget the targeting system needs power and cooling too. Mirrors... Shooting from above is the "cleanest" shot. Hitting debris at an angle will change the debris orbital path (non-deterministic for rotating junk) until it re-enters the atmosphere. That's a risk for space control, which relies on predictable orbits. Capacitors are a solution if the laser requires far more energy than the solar panels, but that lowers the cleanup rate of one satellite. Like I said, the idea works. However, there are tradeoffs between price and results - I don't know that there's a practical balance.
  - RobertRoberts 9y ago
    Sure, the cooling thing I suspected, only because of reading about space suits a long time ago. Are there no lasers that don't require cooling? Of course this is all theory, doesn't every good solution start with a theory, then a poorly functioning prototype before you ever get something truly useful?

petre 9y ago

Impractical and it only makes matters worse since it can turn bigger debris into multiple smaller ones. Rather than shoot stuff with a laser, why not use a vehicle that generates a magnetic field and at least collects feromagnetic debris in one place. Then throw the whole thing into the atmosphere to burn and crash in an unpopulated area.

RobertRoberts 9y ago
Lots of debris is likely not magnetic, and much of this stuff is miles away from eachother traveling at incredible speeds. You couldn't make a device fast enough to change direction and have enough magnetic force to capture much. >...it only makes matters worse since it can turn bigger debris into multiple smaller ones. That's the question, would it though? Real lasers don't behave like hollywood lasers. And are smaller pieces worse than large ones? Maybe the type of material could be detected, and laser based cleaning would work perfectly well with some types of material?
- petre 9y ago
  I suspect a laser would melt and cut up debris. Void is an insulator and the only way to dissipate heat is through radiation. Smaller pieces are worse because they're more numerous if you break up a bigger piece and harder to spot and avoid. Also the probability of a crash increases with the number of debris.
  - RobertRoberts 9y ago
    Sure, but my understanding is that there are so many micrometeors already, they can't leave windows open to space for any extended period of time. There's already tiny particles flying around that they can't do a think about about. This implies that more small stuff shouldn't matter in the least, as they already have no choice but to have protection against this. That means, there is a size small enough that it's no longer an issue. For someone knowledgable, I think it's simple to determine a ratio of size/speed/material type to determine whether or not to shoot the object with a laser or some other method.

GCU-Empiricist 9y ago

That might e taken as a violation of UN Space treaty. Depends on how weapons of mass destruction is defined in the treaty.

RobertRoberts 9y ago
I'd imagine dynamite is dangerous as well, but it's used for construction and building projects. Maybe an exception could be made...