Oh, Hubble, Can This Really Be the End?

[n2doc]

By Alexis Madrigal February 18, 2009 |


The spectacular collision between two satellites on Feb. 10 could make the shuttle mission to fix the Hubble Space Telescope too risky to attempt.

Before the collision, space junk problems had already upped the Hubble mission's risk of a "catastrophic impact" beyond NASA's usual limits, Nature's Geoff Brumfiel reported today, and now the problem will be worse.

Mark Matney, an orbital debris specialist at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas told the publication that even before the collision, the risk of an impact was 1 in 185, which was "uncomfortably close to unacceptable levels" and the satellite collision "is only going to add on to that."

Matney said that it could be one or two weeks before NASA knows if the mission will go ahead. If it does, the shuttle Atlantis is expected to reach the telescope in mid-May.

more:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/gonehubblegone.html

[AndyA]

1. The people who've put all this crap up in space need to go back up there and clean it up!

Pretty soon, we'll have trashed space as much as we've trashed the planet! Clean it up!!

[tridim]

5. I'm pretty sure that's not even close to possible

At least with today's technology.

[AndyA]

8. That wouldn't surprise me.

But at some point, there's going to be so much junk up there that they won't be able to do anything until they do clean it up. A rather short sighted flaw in the big plan, wouldn't you say?

They need to make finding a way to clean it up a priority, and make everyone who's put up a satellite or anything else kick in to make it happen.

[tridim]

9. Not saying it's not a problem, but intercepting thousands of tiny objects in random orbits..

is a massive problem. I can't think of any way to do it without potentially making the problem worse.

Nuclear blast? Uhm no.
SDI laser? Good luck hitting anything. Would probably create even smaller pieces.
A giant orbiting shield? Impractical, ineffective, probably wouldn't work anyway.
A big magnet? Doesn't work for aluminum and plastic.
A ship flying around and picking up pieces? Impractical, dangerous, expensive and probably impossible.

Any other ideas? You can't just de-orbit a bolt, let alone thousands of them.

[Vincardog]

13. How about a few thousand miles of spider web? Orbit a giant spider's web for a few years then

de-orbit the accumulated mass.

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. I heard recently that the European Space agency is planning to do that, although how I am not sure.

[tridim]

2. Bring on the James Webb telescope

Fast track it.

[n2doc]

3. agree! n/t

[RollWithIt]

4. I have a fix for this problem.....

[drm604]

6. So, if they determine that it's too dangerous

does that mean it's too dangerous for any manned flights?

If it is, then how long will the danger last? Will it be for the forseeable future? :-(

[Warpy]

7. It will be until they solve the problem

of space junk traveling at 18,000 miles an hour. Even a fleck of paint can cause a catastrophic failure if it hits a space suit.

[AlecBGreen]

10. anything in orbit around the earth IS travelling

many thousands of MPH but so are you. wouldnt it just "bump" into you?

:headscratch: rotational dynamics was never my strong point

[Warpy]

11. You're assuming it's all going in the same direction

It's not.

[AlecBGreen]

14. oh yeah

I guess things that are in stationary orbit stay in the same place, right? relative to the earth I mean. So if they're floating above Virginia, they're always above VA. Then there are things which are "stationary" relative to the ground and so would smack into the other guys at 9981298378783 mph.

I got Ds in all 3 semester of physics. *sigh*

[Warpy]

15. Think of a bunch of moths around a porch light.

Then think of them doing it without being able to sense each other.

Splat.

[Posteritatis]

17. You couldn't have a stationary orbit over Virginia

The only place you can have geostationary orbits is the equator, and even then it has to be pretty high up. Generally speaking the closer to the planet you get, the faster you're orbiting.

If something was in a ninety-minute equatorial orbit far lower down, and something else was in a ninety-minute polar orbit at the same altitude, well, well, thud.

[Ptah]

12. I think the satellite junk is in a much higher orbit than the shuttle's normal orbit