"How to address the Kessler syndrome..." Topic

So, I've been reading up on the Kessler Syndrome (KS) lately and I came across a few articles proposing various methods of mitigating the problem.

It seems that decaying orbits, solar wind and atmospheric drag are the main natural forces that deorbit space junk, however, these natural proceses are very slow and could take millenia to clear away low earth orbit objects in a runaway KS scenario.

Some scientists have proposed using ground based lasers to ablate small objects, which imparts a small thrust that would deorbit the object. It was estimated that a single such laser might be able to deorbit several dozen objects each day.

My question is this: If ablation can be used to deorbit space junk then why couldn't a series of nuclear explosions be used to quickly deorbit hundreds of objects all at once. Surely the radiation from the explosion would be sufficient to cause abation of objects within a much larger area than a targeted laser beam.

If you could design a warhead that is consumed in the explosion rather than fragmenting and adding more debris than it cleans up you should eventually be able to eliminate all of the small debris given enough detonations.

I suppose you might first need to deorbit all of the existing sattelites we still have control over, but it seems to me like it would work.

Feel free to poke holes in my idea -- I'm sure it won't be difficult or someone smarter than me would have already proposed it.

One major obstacle is the mere idea of having nuclear weapons in space. There is at least one major treaty forbidding that. No way will it be allowed to be violated

Then, there is the random direction in which the particles you wish to slow down would be affected. You cannot aim the effects of a nuke like you can a laser.

finally, I will let someone more knowledgeable about the differences between a nuke in the atmosphere and in airless space.

Not to mention the fact that (assuming it works to begin with) it is an indiscriminate method. You can't pick and choose what you "sweep" with a blast weapon. It would cost on board fuel to alter orbits of useful satellites out of the blast area (assuming they have on board maneuver fuel to begin with).

Well, if the options are either we are completely denied access to space because of the junk in orbit or we clean up the junk using nuclear explosions then I think the treaties might get set aside long enough and solely for the purpose of cleaning up the junk.

One of the interesting points in the articles about the 'laser broom' was that it didn't matter much which direction the ablation occurs in for an object to become deorbited. Some scientists thought that you wouldn't be able to deorbit junk by firing a ground based laser at it since the ablation would occur on the 'wrong' (earth facing) side of the object. However, testing proved that to be untrue and found that ablation anywhere on the object would destabilize it and cause it to deorbit.

The main difference between an atmospheric and non atmospheric detonation is the lack of a concussive pressure wave. Nukes in space can only cause damage from energy transferred via high energy radiation (gamma rays and the like) released by the explosion. Therefore, the area of destruction is considerably smaller in space, or so I believe.

Dan, the idea behind runaway KS is that there is so much junk in orbit that cascading collisions will quickly destroy anything in orbit. So, any existing satellites are doomed anyway. I thought you might need to deorbit them before using the nukes so that they don't break up and add to the problem you are trying to fix.

Nukes wouldn't work. You would need so many that the magnetic belts around Earth would be flooded with charged particles and possibly disrupted.

And that is ignoring EMP effects from close earth orbit nuclear explosions.

The average person doesn't care about space enough to go through the years of disruption that such a program would require.

Quaker, wouldn't that just cause some spectacular aurora borealis effects? The earth's magnetic fields are bombarded with charged particles from the sun constantly. I can't imagine a nuke would be any worse than a garden variety solar flare and we get hit by them fairly frequently.

We could pretty easily mitigate any emp effects with a little pre-planning. Simply disconnecting any sensitive electronics prior to the detonations would do the trick. Unlike in an attack or massive solar flare we would know when and where the emp is going to occur ahead of time.

If you take away everyone's gps, satellite communications, dish network, sirius radio and a good chunk of the internet they might start to care.

you say "Hellllooo Kessler syndrome."

Remember the lasers are near point effect; bombs are area effect, and fall off in inverse square. Even near orbit space is Hitchhiker's Guide 'really big'.

Simply disconnecting any sensitive electronics prior to the detonations would do the trick.

Even components are vulnerable to really big EMP.

Doug

How about an inexpensive drone like probe that clamps on and de-orbits itself?

Which requires staging rockets, possible space junk in the form of shrouds, and there's always rate-of-fail meaning some of the inexpensive drones become PART of the problem.

Doug

How would China and Russia feel about the U.S. building a large laser to remove objects in space?

How would China and Russia feel about the U.S. building a large laser to remove objects in space?

Space is really, really big. Nuke effect volumes in space are tiny, even for really, really big nukes. Essentially, you would need one nuke for each piece of junk, which sort of defeats the point (and would be enormously expensive).

The other problem with using nuclear weapons would likely become one of cost; their area of effect in space isn't all *that* large versus the areas you need to cover, so you're looking at lots and lots of nuclear weapons, and launching them isn't free either.

Edit: Ninja'd by emckinney!

-Will

Which is to what I alluded to as well. Too subtle wording?

@MahanMan Score!

Third opponent was just a sore neighbor. ;->=

Doug

Which requires staging rockets, possible space junk in the form of shrouds

I followed the last Cygnus resupply mission and I don't think that created any junk.

The Antares rocket and shroud covering the Cygnus deployed while still on a sub-orbital tragectory. Cygnus then boosted into orbit and also returned in the same stage.

Aside from the Outer Space Treaty, you don't want to light off nukes anywhere near Earth's magnetic field due to the High-altitude EMP effects, which would raise hell on the ground.

A single 1.44 megaton explosion 400km above the Pacific blew out streetlights, set off burglar alarms, and fried a radio station's antenna 1500km away in Hawaii. (Starfish Prime test)

A single 400kt explosion 100km above the Pacific caused auroras to be visible across the Pacific and caused enough radio interference that all radio broadcasts were interrupted for 3 hours. (Kingfish test)

I don't think that created any junk.

*shrug* Wouldn't know, though space junk can include paint chips. Does separation still require explosive connectors? Exploded pieces can have their vectors greatly increased by that.

Also, will point out that was point to point, whereas either each drone has its own delivery vehicle, or, point to many disperse and separate orbital points, each drone is a massive vehicle of its own to find pieces.

Back to rate-of-failure…

Obviously, you've followed more closely than I, I'll have to admit.

Doug

Where will the aliens hide their orbital limpet mines, if this is done?

They are against this program, for obvious reasons.

Long story short, Kessler syndrome is no joke!

-Will

Using a nuclear warhead? Really? A nuke detonated in space over North America would set the continent back to the stone age. The electro-magentic pulse (EMP) would fry any power grid on the planet that is essentially line of site to the detonation. Military equipment might continue to function.

An EMP, natural or man-made, has been the reason why American politicians have been talking about doing something to harden the power grid.

A nuke detonated in space over North America would set the continent back to the stone age.

So pick a different continent to be over. I could suggest a few.

(That was a joke, son. )

Hmmm. Wonder if a series of huge orbital "nets" might work, launched in a counter-orbit to the unwanted junk. Most stuff is orbited to take advantage of the Earth's west to east rotational velocity. Spend more fuel and launch your net (deployed in space, naturally) in the opposite direction. Give the net electromagnetic charges to attract metal components. As the net impacts debris, it will eventually use velocity and de-orbit. Or it could be given a specific command to de-orbit if necessary.
Obviously, this idea is intended for the smaller debris. Defunct sats and the like could be cleared by more direct methods. And, of course, the nets would need to avoid known beneficial sats, and would only clear the specific orbital path of each net's own flight. Still, it could be a start.

Hmmm. Wonder if a series of huge orbital "nets" might work, launched in a counter-orbit to the unwanted junk. Most stuff is orbited to take advantage of the Earth's west to east rotational velocity. Spend more fuel and launch your net (deployed in space, naturally) in the opposite direction. Give the net electromagnetic charges to attract metal components. As the net impacts debris, it will eventually use velocity and de-orbit. Or it could be given a specific command to de-orbit if necessary.

How much space junk is magnetic though? BUT I think the basic idea would work. I've seen similar ideas but using a large 'sail' of some sort of tough carbon-nano fiber stuff in multiple layers (like a whipple shield). Eventually the sail gets shredded but in the mean time hopefully it's slowed down and deorbited enough junk to make it worthwhile.

-Will

How would China and Russia feel about the U.S. building a large laser to remove objects in space?

Russia would say, "What took you so long?"

They had a pretty big laser test center at Sary Shagan (45.848°N 73.518°E) link

Not sure about the Chinese, but high-output chemical lasers are pretty simple to make. I would not be surprised if the Chinese had one or more.

Besides, the US still has the MIRACL laser and others at White Sands.

Ok Nukes in space…bad…laser from earth…ineffecient. How about high altitude balloon platform with laser mounts using methane from the high altitude to burn as fuel to generate energy to power the lasers. Additionally the balloon based lasers could deorbit objects at a high angle creating a higher deflection on the surface of the objects being de-orbited. Also at that sort of altitude even smaller objects could be detected as the platform would be high enough that natural dust and atmosphere debris would not clutter the tracking radar. Just a thought

Shadow Weaver

Stogie, I think you overestimate the impact the emp from a nuclear detonation would have.

Yes, a massive solar flare could wipe out our power grid today because it is antiquated, overtaxed, and not hardened to deal with a massive emp.

However, there are steps we could take today to correct the problems. We don't take them because the power companies are private corporations focused solely on profit. Revamping the grid is expensive and doesn't make money for the power companies and their bean counters tell them the chance of the power grid being taken down by an emp (natural or man-made) is too small to justify the expense of preparing for it.

However, if runaway KS were a reality and the only means of dealing with it were a series of nuclear explosions in space i have no doubt we could and would take the necessary steps to undertake such a plan in fairly short order, say within a few years.

It is truly amazing what can be accomplished when a handful of motivated nations set aside their petty bickering and devote ALL of their resources to a massive undertaking with the backing of nearly ALL of their citizenry and They focus their attention on what it takes to accomplish something difficult instead of what it will cost.

It's a rare occurrence normally precipitated by dire circumstances, but when it happens nearly anything becomes possible.

Ignoring financial and political considerations for a bit, would using nukes to ablate and deorbit space junk be scientifically feasible? Would it work?

I think we've established that it would in fact de-orbit junk. It's just not a very efficient way to do it.

-Will

I think you'd be better of using nukes against the big debris, say damaged satellites that you can't de-orbit for whatever reason.

Otherwise, the blast radius of a nuke in space is simply too small to make an effective broom.

I think it is naive to point at the power companies and say that since it is not a profitable action, they will not undertake it. While the bean counters comment has some truth in it, the problem is deeper. It is not profitable and the bean counters recommend avoiding, because of the way the grid is constructed.

As a result of the grid construction, at least in North America, even if one power company re-vamps their section to handle an EMP, the neighboring sections attached to the first section, will have an impact on said section. The issues go further than this, and regrettably, it would take a government action to address these issues, or enough companies getting together and pushing thru for a solution.

By the way, being involved in heavy industry, and closely associated to the energy sector, I know what goes on. And many power companies are involved in working out a solution already. It is more profitable for these companies to avoid a simple blackout like the one that took our the Eastern US and Canada a few years ago, and they know it. They also know, designing a grid to avoid EMP induced blackouts is important. The magnitude of the task, with all those involved, is part of the problem.

Much of the blame does lie with the power companies. Not only have they not hardened the grid to avoid massive blackouts, but they also haven't manufactured the replacement components needed to repair the grid after a massive blackout. This is unconscionable profit mongering since, as things stand now, if the grid ever did collapse it would take years to bring it back online since they would first have to manufacture replacement components.

@Daricles: Do you keep a whole spare car around, on the off chance that your current car gets totaled in an accident? What about a whole spare computer?

You might have spare parts for the high-wear items (brakes and tires, maybe the fluids), but that's about it. Anything more than that is an absurd waste of money.

You are demanding that the power companies keep a spare for every. single. component. in the grid. Tens, if not hundreds of thousands of transformers alone. Hundreds of replacement generators. Hundreds of thousands of miles of wire. Hundreds of thousands of large circuit breakers. Millions of power poles.

Why would *anyone* keep much more spare parts inventory than the expected rate of failure plus a little for accidents?

Imagine if your boss fired you because you had an accident on the way to work and needed a replacement car. That's how unreasonable you are being.

Lion, the difference is that there aren't *millions* of people whose very lives depend upon my car continuing to function.

A better question for you to have asked would have been "Do you keep spare, essential emergency supplies on hand that your family might need to survive on the off chance that some sort of disaster just might happen?"

The answer to that question is a definite yes. I have had the power go out for several days after nothing more than a severe storm so I know how fragile our grid is and, as a result, I have actually spent a considerable amount of money on emergency preparedness supplies and routinely invest more to maintain those supplies in good order and replace them when they expire.

Modern civilizations have become dependent upon our technology for survival. Stop for a moment and think how dependent we are on the "just in time" delivery model that our entire society depends upon to function. How long do you think it would take for our society to collapse if *all* grocery store deliveries stopped *everywhere* for a few weeks?

If you have any doubt about how quickly things would go to hell, just look back on the Katrina aftermath.

I'm not talking about keeping everything running without disruption, so, no, they don't need to have spare parts for everything just lying around. The problem is that they don't even have spare parts to repair the primary generators and switching stations so that the grid can be restarted if it fails.

Queen, thanks for the link. That's actually where I started my reading and from there jumped off to Kessler's website and some other related sites about laser brooms and the such.

For a lot of the really small stuff, the net idea may be best. Take a page from comic books and make missiles just big enough to get there (or load one of the multi-use delivery systems with just the payload) equipped with aerogel "spinners". The payload charge goes off and you get an aerogel cloud that will either collect paint chips or rob them of enough velocity going through that they de-orbit. The cumulative collisions will eventually de-orbit the cloud, but it will be a big radar reflector that you can keep track of until that time.