4 ms·

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

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?

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?