[FPSPACE] blowing up satellites in orbit

[LARRY KLAES]

I wonder if someone can produce a type of foam that could survive being
in space long enough to sweep through various orbits and be strong enough
to capture small debris while leaving any larger working satellites in its 
path
alone.  The foam could then deorbit with the debris and burn up in Earth's
atmosphere, leaving a cleaner space in its wake.

Larry



>From: "Keith Gottschalk" <kgottschalk at uwc.ac.za>
>To: "Friends & Partners FPSPACE" <fpspace at friends-partners.org>
>Subject: [FPSPACE] blowing up satellites in orbit
>Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:06:05 +0200
>
>         JimO has recently been arguing persuasively that the Pentagon
>had rational reasons to be worried about the possibility of a one ton
>hydrazine ice block e.g., falling onto the head of an ambulance lawyer
>  :)
>
>       I do think that the Pentagon should have waited until the
>satellite's apogee dipped below 200 kms altitude before pressing the
>trigger, so as to leave no debris in orbit for very long.
>
>        But I have been told something interesting by a delegate to
>umpteen meetings of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer
>Space. He said that when China blew up one of its satellites last year,
>he saw the biggest protests by a larger range of countries on CUPUOS
>than he had ever seen on any other issue.  By contrast, when the US
>delegate made repeated presentations, with follow-ups at subsequent
>meetings, on the slipping hydrazine ice block, there were no protests,
>and only one request for extra information.
>
>       It shows that playing open cards from the start can make even
>many sceptics acquiesce in a controversial decision. By contrast, the
>PRC delegates were simply evasive and unconvincing. They apparently did
>not even attempt to make out a political case. Neither could they refute
>a top US official noting that this PRC big bang left 17 000 pieces of
>orbiting shrapnel big enough to be tracked on US radars. Which are
>certainly not things that should hit a STS wing leading edge nor cockpit
>windscreen.
>
>         PRC reps could have quoted official USG policy documents in the
>public domain about the USG asserting it s full-spectrum space
>domination, and denying anyone it considered an enemy access to space, &
>incapacitating their space assets, and argued that the PRC needed the
>same capabilities to defend its space assets. Different countries would
>have responded to that with a spectrum of attitudes. But their evasion
>convinced no one.
>
>       Leaving 17 000 pieces of orbiting shrapnel behind you is not
>being a good space neighbour. I propose that space powers should be
>required to pay, pro rata to their space debris per year, funds into a
>UN Trust Fund to be capitalized. Then, as & when future development of
>SSTO RLVs, & ion drive, makes it technologically & financially feasible
>to launch an automated space scavenger vehicle perform the role of an
>orbiting vacuum cleaner, starting at the 800 kms orbit no doubt, the
>tenders can go out. If it takes two decades or longer before this is
>feasible fine, the funds can earn interest that much longer.
>
>Keith


>All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer
>http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal/public/portal_services/disclaimer.htm


>_______________________________________________
>FPSPACE mailing list
>FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
>http://www.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo/fpspace