iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Space Debris: When Will We Clean Up Our Act? (VIDEO)

First Posted: 01/23/2012 8:36 am Updated: 01/23/2012 4:00 pm

Hey everybody! Cara Santa Maria here.

Last week, the defunct Russian space craft, Phobos-Grunt, crashed into the Pacific Ocean. The probe was meant to make the long trek to Mars, where it would study Phobos, one of Mars's two moons, but it never made it out of the Earth's atmosphere. Instead, it spent the last two months circling us, eventually being pulled out of orbit by trusty gravity.

You may think it's a bad thing that huge chunks of metal periodically fall out of the sky (and I mean huge: Phobos-Grunt weighed almost 15 tons), but have you ever thought about the ones that don't come crashing down to Earth? That's right. There's an ever-growing amount of space junk in constant orbit around our little planet.

NASA tracks every single loose object that's larger than 4 centimeters in diameter. They have to. In the vacuum of space, these little projectiles can move at over 20,000 miles per hour. At those speeds, even a tiny fleck of paint can put a crater in the side of an orbiting satellite, and currently, NASA has no way to track these itty bitty accidental missiles.

In fact, since the launch of Sputnik over 50 years ago, space junk has been accumulating. Two of the most famous pieces of space waste are a glove that floated away from the Gemini 4 crew during the first ever US spacewalk, and the camera lost by astronaut Michael Collins during the Gemini 10 mission. There is also a fair amount of space dust, referred to as micrometeorites, that are not man-made.

As we speak, there are around 1,000 active satellites and 15,000 pieces of large debris orbiting our planet. And that's just the ones that have been catalogued by the US government. NASA estimates that the cloud of junk surrounding Earth contains more than 20,000 pieces that are bigger than a softball and over half a million that are larger than a marble. In fact, just last year, the National Research Council said that orbital trash has reached a tipping point. The more stuff floating out there in orbit, the higher the chances of it crashing into each other and making a whole new mess of space trash. Soon enough, there will be too much waste for a satellite or space station to safely stay in orbit!

As if that thought weren't frightening enough, when NASA's chief Orbital Debris scientist Nick Johnson spoke with reporters at SPACE.com about cleaning up the debris, he said: "there is no urgency, thankfully. We can easily wait 10 or 15 years before we start doing anything. We have time to do this right."

Now, I understand the need to come up with a solid, cost-effective plan to fly into space and clean up all the crap that's orbiting us. But 10 to 15 years? Is that really necessary? And isn't this the kind of attitude that got us into this mess--literally--in the first place? Why not launch a satellite into low-earth orbit with no contingency for taking it down? I don't live in outer space! We'll figure it all out later.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am a huge supporter of space exploration. And I don't know what I'd do without all of my fancy gadgets that rely on satellite transmissions. But half the reason we want to eventually go to another planet is because we are rapidly making this one uninhabitable. I think it's high time that sustainability and a reverence toward nature (including the nature of space) factor into our decision-making.

How do you propose we deal with our ever-growing space junk problem? I'd love to hear your thoughts. You can reach out to me on Twitter, Facebook, or leave your comments right here on The Huffington Post. Come on, talk nerdy to me!

See all Talk Nerdy to Me posts: www.huffingtonpost.com/news/talk-nerdy-to-me
Like Cara Santa Maria on Facebook: www.facebook.com/pages/Cara-Santa-Maria
Follow Cara Santa Maria on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CaraSantaMaria

FOLLOW HUFFPOST SCIENCE

Hey everybody! Cara Santa Maria here. Last week, the defunct Russian space craft, Phobos-Grunt, crashed into the Pacific Ocean. The probe was meant to make the long trek to Mars, where it would ...
Hey everybody! Cara Santa Maria here. Last week, the defunct Russian space craft, Phobos-Grunt, crashed into the Pacific Ocean. The probe was meant to make the long trek to Mars, where it would ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 258
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (9 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PatTheHat
Hey hey my my rock & roll will never die
06:15 PM on 02/25/2012
Yeah right, clean all that up?...uh huh, 'k....delusional much?
If they can ever actually do anything practical, my best guess would be it'll be making like pathways through sections of the flotsam & jetsom, spaces in space as it were, in the various trajectories we'll expect to use and can be kept a closer eye on for further outer orbit 'street sweeping'.
Gee whiz are we ever messy pigs :-) !
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:12 PM on 02/10/2012
We can't knock things out of orbit and send it into space. That would be the beginning of junking up the rest of outer space. I don't care how big our solar system is. Trash is trash.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dsws
No owning ideas. Limit only commercial use.
01:24 PM on 01/27/2012
"eventually being pulled out of orbit by trusty gravity"

Gravity doesn't pull things out of orbit. An orbit is precisely a closed trajectory that an object would stay *in*, under the effects of gravity.

"How do you propose we deal with our ever-growing space junk problem?"

When sending probes beyond near-earth space, and when sending satellites to high orbits like geostationary, use a lot of air as propellant. Release it in retrograde orbit, in orbits that don't contain satellites and do contain junk. It's not a very efficient way of boosting probes and satellites: hence the need to use lots of it. But it takes lots of it to de-orbit the junk.

For larger chunks, put a satellite retrograde in the orbit to be cleared, with lots of propellant, and have it fire its rocket directly at chunks of junk as it passes near them. Figure it so that the thing de-orbits itself just before it would run out of propellant.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thinkster
I Think, therefore I POST!
11:44 PM on 01/25/2012
Were a sloppy bunch of slobs - everything is about the moment - and MONEY!

"I've got mine - good luck getting yours. And if I spoil the earth and local space - well - that's too bad for YOU - I'll just leave it to you to clean up the mess - I need to leave and go spend all that money I made from you, and I really don't care if you all go under dealing with it all. I've got mine."

Nothing to be surprised about. And I won't be here to suffer the worst of it - your young people will be dealing with it all.

Good article Cara - but I don't think the people that can deal with this care at all - it's all someone else's problem.
cosmicdart
paragon of paradigms
12:10 AM on 01/26/2012
Weapons in space are outlawed, but this problem enables them to place a powerful metallic nano-particle beam projectors in orbit. It could knock space junk out of orbit, or enemy missiles, and satellites. There's a reason why they let this junk build as it has. Industry is always causing a problem so it may have an excuse to solve it. In world war I, they used planes to throw bricks , then machine guns, and then.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thinkster
I Think, therefore I POST!
10:28 AM on 01/26/2012
Interesting - seems unlikely, but it certainly turned out that way, didn't it?
photo
jf12
Esta vez saldré como las otras y me escaparé.
11:39 PM on 01/24/2012
Hey Cara,
news article about nueroimaging advances spurring connectivity studies, "Probing the Brain's Mysteries":
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203750404577175331430981986.html?mod=topix
cosmicdart
paragon of paradigms
05:22 PM on 01/24/2012
The most efficient way to move a piece of space junk would be a milli-gram of metallic nano-particles in the form of a focused beam hitting it at high velocity head on. After a few impulses, it would fall out of orbit. The orbital beam projector would have 746 million shots with one ton of nano-particles in storage. It would be a radar guided solar powered turkey shoot.
cosmicdart
paragon of paradigms
05:28 PM on 01/24/2012
We need a tail-gunner on the International Space Station!
04:07 PM on 01/24/2012
Oh no, we're littering outer space. If we don't get rid of the thousands of little trash pieces in space they may enter our atmosphere and burn up like a shooting star before they hit land or water. That would completely mess up my download speed. Superman, where are you when we need you?
photo
peoplepersons
Obama 2012
03:23 PM on 01/24/2012
Debris in space as we all know are particles of matter that float around unwanted, wreaking havoc on satellites and other maned vehicles. So you can take the approach of, "God doesn't want us out there.", hence the floating matter. Or take a more human approach and find a solution.

Solution is A: Not my job, B: I didn't put the satellites up there C: Cleaning up space before cleaning up our own planet is absolute absurdity.

Meteor's on the other hand that travel into our gravitational pull can accumulate over time and will need to be cleaned up IF the 1% want to abandon Earth and claim their double phoenix free mason status then they need to look at the technology we have here to do it most efficient.

Lasers, (PEM fuel cells, Solar)
photo
medici
My micro-brewery is empty.
02:45 PM on 01/24/2012
Many years ago there was a TV comedy about a space going garbage scow (United Galaxy Sanitation Patrol Cruiser) which picked up space junk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_(TV_series)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hursh 4 ever
Smart Commenter - logical and wise
01:45 PM on 01/24/2012
i suggest sending all that crap into the sun.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ickymcpooh
yes I get it my grammur is bad and I cant spell.I
01:01 PM on 01/24/2012
If their is life out their they would take on look at our planet and assume it was a dump and we was dirty animals just a step above a monkey.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hursh 4 ever
Smart Commenter - logical and wise
01:47 PM on 01/24/2012
eh.. the planet is over 4.5 billion years old... humans haven't been around long enough to even make a dent... and we have about 4 million more years to go too.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thezestyitalian1
02:35 PM on 01/24/2012
lmao! Yeah ok.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pjohns
Let nature be a teacher
11:42 AM on 01/24/2012
I'm laughing. Anyone who is a mother of active children knows the problem with getting them to clean their room, rake leaves, do dishes, etc. Somehow those with extraordinary intelligence seem to think the maid will do it. Huh-uh. No maid in space.
cosmicdart
paragon of paradigms
11:35 AM on 01/24/2012
An even more economical way of knocking space junk out of Earth's orbit would be to place a copper nano-particle cyclotron accelerator in orbit above the debris field. Nano-particles of copper traveling at 1000 miles a second or more towards the center of the Earth would push out of orbit everything in between. It could be solar powered. Only a small amount of copper nano-particles would be needed. Any nana-particles that would miss their target would burn up in the atmosphere. The nano-particle recoil would be use to slowly propel this space craft about from one orbital level to another.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
montestruc
War is the health of the state--Randolph Bourne
09:00 AM on 01/24/2012
Their are several ways of dealing with this technically. Example, we launch a sub-orbital satellite that deploys a cloud of gas or perhaps small particles going slow in tge opposite direction of the piece of trash in front of it. The junk crashes into it, and is slowed into crashing into the earth ( of you do it right on a mid-ocean landing) and that problem is solved. That is however difficult and expensive.

The sub-orbital nature of the launch to bring down the junk keeps you from net adding to the garbage.

Other techniques exist.

I think the biggest issue is, who is going to pay for this?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
PRONESE
Somewhat Opinionated Curmudgeon
05:42 AM on 01/24/2012
We're all DEVO.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iktsVGg0-w0
More Coffee...
R/ PRONESE