Date: 9/03/2014 10:18:47
From: Arts
ID: 500704
Subject: too much junk in your... space

A new $150 million Australian research centre is being set up to target space junk in Earth’s orbit.

The Collaborative Research Centre (CRC) for Space Environment Management, based at Mt Stromlo Observatory near Canberra, will bring together work by researchers and industry groups from Australia and overseas.

The centre will develop ways to track and remove more than 300,000 pieces of space debris in orbit.

CRC chief executive Dr Ben Greene says debris is a real problem for satellites and spacecraft.

“A catastrophic avalanche of collisions that would quickly destroy all satellites is now possible,” he said.

“In the worst case, two satellites would collide and the debris from those satellites would be directly in the path of more satellites in a very short space of time.
Video: Space junk a threat to satellites (ABC News)

“They would then generate more debris and very quickly the avalanche would grow until everything was colliding with everything and space would become uninhabitable for satellites for hundreds of years.”

Dr Greene says there is a “realistic threat” that, at current rates, there is a chance all satellites could be destroyed in a catastrophic event.

He says finding a way to accurately track orbiting material is the first challenge researchers will face.

“It’s a realistic threat. We are exactly on the curve that we predicted 10 years ago for the number of satellites we would lose in a year,” he said.

“If those losses are at a level two or three times , we could avalanche effect where we lose everything.”

The CRC will use high-powered telescopes to identify space debris. It will then bounce specialised lasers off the objects to identify their range and plot their orbits.

“Our initial aim is to reduce the rate of debris proliferation due to new collisions,” Dr Greene said.

“There is now so much debris that it is colliding with itself, making an already big problem even bigger.”

Collisions between satellites, space debris ‘regular’

CRC lead researcher Professor Craig Smith says collisions between satellites and space debris are not unusual.

“We’ve managed to pollute space kind of like the way we’ve polluted oceans and rivers. It’s an environmental problem,” he said.

“There are actually regular collisions – one to two a year between active space satellites and more collisions between space debris.

“At the moment, they are random acts of God because no-one can do anything about them.

“Part of the CRC’s plan is to predict and to manoeuvre satellites around the space debris and ultimately to push space debris to stop collisions happening.”

Dr Greene says the CRC currently tracks 10 per cent of known space debris and hopes to cover 50 per cent within the next five years.

“We’re trying to look after some serious assets and we’re trying to take care of a problem that until quite recently was considered unmanageable,” he said.

There are more than 6,000 active satellites in orbital space worth an estimated $1 trillion.

further talk of huge lasers.. no mention of sharks

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 10:23:24
From: roughbarked
ID: 500707
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

The sharks no doubt, are counting this as a blessing.

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 10:40:30
From: buffy
ID: 500710
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

I heard this one on the ABC on Friday night while driving home. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to picture an anarchic outcome.

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 10:51:28
From: transition
ID: 500714
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

>“At the moment, they are random acts of God because no-one can do anything about them.

something about this statement…..hmmm

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 10:52:54
From: transition
ID: 500715
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

>It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to picture an anarchic outcome.

doubtful a cascade of satellites wiped out would be the end of the world.

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 10:56:41
From: buffy
ID: 500716
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

transition said:


>It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to picture an anarchic outcome.

doubtful a cascade of satellites wiped out would be the end of the world.

I said anarchic, not gone. I’ve had experience of phones and eftpos knocked out by an exchange fire for two weeks. Fortunately it was in our rural location where pretty much everyone knows everyone else, but it could have been a lot nastier in a city where there is no such trust/knowledge to tide everyone over. Knock out the satellites and you lose a very large part of Western communications/commerce etc.

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 10:57:36
From: buffy
ID: 500717
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

I said anarchic, not gone.

I’ll just re-word that a bit…..I said anarchic, not apocolyptic.

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 10:58:41
From: transition
ID: 500718
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

>Knock out the satellites and you lose a very large part of Western communications/commerce etc.

Maybe, for a while, but it wouldn’t be all bad.

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 11:04:02
From: buffy
ID: 500719
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

>>Maybe, for a while, but it wouldn’t be all bad.<<

It would take quite a long time to get satellites back up there. And those that survived, if any did, could ask a premium, making communications much more expensive. We are getting quite dependent, and with poor backup/redundancy in the system.

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 11:07:21
From: roughbarked
ID: 500720
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

transition said:


>Knock out the satellites and you lose a very large part of Western communications/commerce etc.

Maybe, for a while, but it wouldn’t be all bad.

Wouldn’t affect me directly.

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 11:10:56
From: transition
ID: 500723
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

>It would take quite a long time to get satellites back up there. And those that survived, if any did, could ask a premium, making communications much more expensive. We are getting quite dependent, and with poor backup/redundancy in the system.

I was just going through in my imagination a world wth very few satellites, maybe some lighter ones in orbits further out, thing is though transmitter power requirements, and antenna size I suppose increase, and time delays increase and I suppose inaccuracies because of distance may be more, but the point was is it an altogether better world in every way from having those things up there. Some of the dependencies (the scale of) could be imagined, not real.

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 11:13:47
From: Tamb
ID: 500724
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

roughbarked said:


transition said:

>Knock out the satellites and you lose a very large part of Western communications/commerce etc.

Maybe, for a while, but it wouldn’t be all bad.

Wouldn’t affect me directly.

Someone has probably said it but GPS/Satnav would be knocked out so airlines would be grounded. A lot of shipping would also be affected.

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 11:17:02
From: transition
ID: 500726
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

>Someone has probably said it but GPS/Satnav would be knocked out so airlines would be grounded. A lot of shipping would also be affected.

Fairly obvious one yeah, but what would be reverted to, and most have contingency fallbacks incase of failures.

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 11:17:36
From: roughbarked
ID: 500727
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

Tamb said:


roughbarked said:

transition said:

>Knock out the satellites and you lose a very large part of Western communications/commerce etc.

Maybe, for a while, but it wouldn’t be all bad.

Wouldn’t affect me directly.

Someone has probably said it but GPS/Satnav would be knocked out so airlines would be grounded. A lot of shipping would also be affected.

All that is indirect in its effect upon such as me.

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 11:18:38
From: roughbarked
ID: 500729
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

transition said:


>Someone has probably said it but GPS/Satnav would be knocked out so airlines would be grounded. A lot of shipping would also be affected.

Fairly obvious one yeah, but what would be reverted to, and most have contingency fallbacks incase of failures.

They’d have to actually peruse maps.

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 11:29:24
From: CrazyNeutrino
ID: 500732
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

One way could be to develop mini rockets that attach to the satellite, the rocket has an inbuilt guidance system that then directs the defunct satellite into a controlled burn over an ocean

the mini rockets are delivered via a series of mother ships say 8 placed around both the northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere that start from higher orbits, then they each work their way closer in

a computer on the ground that has the orbits of all the defunct satellites works out the best orbits for the mother ships to deliver the mini rockets

but a combination of other ways will be needed such as nets for smaller debris such as from the Chinese satellite that got blown up

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 11:36:50
From: roughbarked
ID: 500733
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

CrazyNeutrino said:


One way could be to develop mini rockets that attach to the satellite, the rocket has an inbuilt guidance system that then directs the defunct satellite into a controlled burn over an ocean

the mini rockets are delivered via a series of mother ships say 8 placed around both the northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere that start from higher orbits, then they each work their way closer in

a computer on the ground that has the orbits of all the defunct satellites works out the best orbits for the mother ships to deliver the mini rockets

but a combination of other ways will be needed such as nets for smaller debris such as from the Chinese satellite that got blown up

Every launch puts more stuff up there. We do need to clear the space and try to reduce the dumping of junk.

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 11:40:48
From: CrazyNeutrino
ID: 500735
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

CrazyNeutrino said:


One way could be to develop mini rockets that attach to the satellite, the rocket has an inbuilt guidance system that then directs the defunct satellite into a controlled burn over an ocean

the mini rockets are delivered via a series of mother ships say 8 placed around both the northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere that start from higher orbits, then they each work their way closer in

a computer on the ground that has the orbits of all the defunct satellites works out the best orbits for the mother ships to deliver the mini rockets

but a combination of other ways will be needed such as nets for smaller debris such as from the Chinese satellite that got blown up

the mini rockets could be delivered to the international space station that could also release the mini rockets

each one would perform two burns, one to get to the defunct satellite, then after it attaches itself to the satellite, the mini rocket wouldnthen perform another burn to get into a controlled descent

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 11:48:44
From: Spiny Norman
ID: 500737
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

CrazyNeutrino said:


CrazyNeutrino said:

One way could be to develop mini rockets that attach to the satellite, the rocket has an inbuilt guidance system that then directs the defunct satellite into a controlled burn over an ocean

the mini rockets are delivered via a series of mother ships say 8 placed around both the northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere that start from higher orbits, then they each work their way closer in

a computer on the ground that has the orbits of all the defunct satellites works out the best orbits for the mother ships to deliver the mini rockets

but a combination of other ways will be needed such as nets for smaller debris such as from the Chinese satellite that got blown up

the mini rockets could be delivered to the international space station that could also release the mini rockets

each one would perform two burns, one to get to the defunct satellite, then after it attaches itself to the satellite, the mini rocket wouldnthen perform another burn to get into a controlled descent

Easier to just have a large inflatable reflective balloon. The sunlight would bounce off it to change the orbit, until it gets deep enough into the atmosphere to finally burn-up.
And could also bounce the ground or space-based lasers off to help with the process.
No guidance needed.

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 11:49:41
From: CrazyNeutrino
ID: 500738
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

CrazyNeutrino said:


CrazyNeutrino said:

One way could be to develop mini rockets that attach to the satellite, the rocket has an inbuilt guidance system that then directs the defunct satellite into a controlled burn over an ocean

the mini rockets are delivered via a series of mother ships say 8 placed around both the northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere that start from higher orbits, then they each work their way closer in

a computer on the ground that has the orbits of all the defunct satellites works out the best orbits for the mother ships to deliver the mini rockets

but a combination of other ways will be needed such as nets for smaller debris such as from the Chinese satellite that got blown up

the mini rockets could be delivered to the international space station that could also release the mini rockets

each one would perform two burns, one to get to the defunct satellite, then after it attaches itself to the satellite, the mini rocket wouldnthen perform another burn to get into a controlled descent

in addition they would be different sized mini rockets, small ones for small satellites, medium ones and larger ones but all rockets are relatively small

also a new standard should be agreed upon for each new satellite to have a controlled burn decent module fitted for the satellites after life, which would guide it over an ocean

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 11:57:18
From: CrazyNeutrino
ID: 500740
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

Spiny Norman said:


CrazyNeutrino said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

One way could be to develop mini rockets that attach to the satellite, the rocket has an inbuilt guidance system that then directs the defunct satellite into a controlled burn over an ocean

the mini rockets are delivered via a series of mother ships say 8 placed around both the northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere that start from higher orbits, then they each work their way closer in

a computer on the ground that has the orbits of all the defunct satellites works out the best orbits for the mother ships to deliver the mini rockets

but a combination of other ways will be needed such as nets for smaller debris such as from the Chinese satellite that got blown up

the mini rockets could be delivered to the international space station that could also release the mini rockets

each one would perform two burns, one to get to the defunct satellite, then after it attaches itself to the satellite, the mini rocket wouldnthen perform another burn to get into a controlled descent

Easier to just have a large inflatable reflective balloon. The sunlight would bounce off it to change the orbit, until it gets deep enough into the atmosphere to finally burn-up.
And could also bounce the ground or space-based lasers off to help with the process.
No guidance needed.

I would imagine that a whole series of solutions will be developed by the new facility

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 12:00:23
From: roughbarked
ID: 500743
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

CrazyNeutrino said:

I would imagine that a whole series of solutions will be developed by the new facility

Australia is i a good position at present.

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 12:12:08
From: Soso
ID: 500746
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

Some more information on this venture

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-03/anu-ncf030614.php

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 12:20:48
From: CrazyNeutrino
ID: 500748
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

A good malware program might help too

try spybot

Spybot

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 12:22:42
From: CrazyNeutrino
ID: 500750
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

CrazyNeutrino said:


A good malware program might help too

try spybot

Spybot

wrong fred

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 12:23:26
From: CrazyNeutrino
ID: 500753
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

opps again

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 19:20:24
From: Arts
ID: 500929
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

transition said:


>“At the moment, they are random acts of God because no-one can do anything about them.

something about this statement…..hmmm

if they can call is the ‘God particle’ and get away with it….

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 19:27:47
From: PM 2Ring
ID: 500939
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

Arts said:

if they can call is the ‘God particle’ and get away with it…

FWIW, the Higgs boson(s) got the nickname “the God particle” not because it’s particularly important (it’s not), but because it’s supposed to be (virtually) omnipresent yet it was unobservable (until very recently).

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 19:27:56
From: roughbarked
ID: 500940
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

Arts said:


transition said:

>“At the moment, they are random acts of God because no-one can do anything about them.

something about this statement…..hmmm

if they can call is the ‘God particle’ and get away with it….

The insurance companies no longer mention Acts of God.

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 19:30:34
From: Skunkworks
ID: 500946
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

roughbarked said:


Arts said:

transition said:

>“At the moment, they are random acts of God because no-one can do anything about them.

something about this statement…..hmmm

if they can call is the ‘God particle’ and get away with it….

The insurance companies no longer mention Acts of God.

Force majeure.

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 19:31:28
From: Arts
ID: 500948
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

roughbarked said:


Arts said:

transition said:

>“At the moment, they are random acts of God because no-one can do anything about them.

something about this statement…..hmmm

if they can call is the ‘God particle’ and get away with it….

The insurance companies no longer mention Acts of God.

my kids school took the words “and under God” out of the school creed this year .. none of that stops people using the word to explain things they can’t explain..

PM a good point.

Reply Quote

Date: 9/03/2014 19:46:13
From: CrazyNeutrino
ID: 500979
Subject: re: too much junk in your... space

Arts said:


transition said:

>“At the moment, they are random acts of God because no-one can do anything about them.

something about this statement…..hmmm

if they can call is the ‘God particle’ and get away with it….

I think this God particle needs to be redefined…

maybe, absolute particle

Reply Quote