5 ms·
Maybe it's not a big deal, but it seemed weird to me that this article didn't mention that the cleanup satellite would need to burn fuel for propulsion to drag
by sfink 3y ago
Maybe it's not a big deal, but it seemed weird to me that this article didn't mention that the cleanup satellite would need to burn fuel for propulsion to drag things around. The way it was written seemed to violate conservation of energy: you zap a junk satellite with this magic beam, and it starts moving without having any effect on the cleanup satellite.
You would of course need fuel to propel both satellites together into the disposal orbit, and then more fuel if you want to come back for another load. (Ok, maybe not fuel, if this is slow enough that solar power would be enough. But you'd still need reaction mass of some sort.)
- cwillu 3y ago“The electrostatic tractor would use a servicer spacecraft equipped with an electron gun that would fire negatively charged electrons at a dead target satellite, Champion told Live Science. The electrons would give the target a negative charge while leaving the servicer with a positive charge. The electrostatic attraction between the two would keep them locked together despite being separated by 65 to 100 feet (20 to 30 meters) of empty space, she said.”
- plorg 3y agoSo by that description we're still talking space tugboats. I guess the advantage is supposed to be a lower chance of collisions damaging the tug and producing extra debris?
- sand500 3y agoPhysically attaching something is probably really complicated and you need to make sure the junk doesn't rotate out of control as you burn to de orbit it.
- Sharlin 3y agoSolar electric (ion drive) would work fine here, a few kg of xenon would last for a long time. And you could feed the tractor beam with the electrons stripped from the xenon atoms…