[bearnard1212 (OP)]

The consideration to keep in mind is called space junk, we got quite some trash up there in orbit of our planet. It's considered not to be a problem due that the size of the object would burn in our atmosphere. But we of Asgardia want to go to space and we require to keep in mind out of the prospect of security, what do we do about the space junk? And is there a possibility that space junk might be dangerous for Earth and its` population?

[Halc]

The problem is not about it burning in the atmosphere since if it was in the atmosphere, it wouldn't be space junk. Thus very little of space junk poses a danger to Earth population since most of Earth's population is in said atmosphere where the space junk isn't. Some big pieces de-orbiting (Skylab for instance, also the Columbia) do pose a danger, but humans are remarkably small targets to hit, and the general influx of normal meteors poses a much larger threat, and even then it is incredible news when one of them actually manages to injure somebody.

So the problem is the threat posed by the stuff to non-junk satellites.  There is almost nothing one can do about it unless we can invent some sort of tangential tractor beam, which is pure science fiction. The idea is to get these objects to actually hit the atmosphere instead of continuously missing it.

[Bored chemist]

The consideration to keep in mind is called space junk, we got quite some trash up there in orbit of our planet. It's considered not to be a problem due that the size of the object would burn in our atmosphere. But we of Asgardia want to go to space and we require to keep in mind out of the prospect of security, what do we do about the space junk? And is there a possibility that space junk might be dangerous for Earth and its` population?

My understanding of Asgardia  is that they put some pieces of space junk into orbit with every bit as much rationality and scientific integrity as the people who went round sticking union jack flags into tropical islands a few hundred years ago.

[evan_au]

I had never heard of Asgardia...

Asgardia, also known as the Space Kingdom of Asgardia and "Asgardia the Space Nation", is a micronation formed by a group of people who have launched a satellite into Earth orbit. They refer to themselves as "Asgardians" and they have given their satellite the name "Asgardia-1".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asgardia

[alancalverd]

Asgardia as in "cover your..."? Or a misprint for the Irish police force? If the latter, no problem - they are very good at clearing the roads.

Space travellers have little to worry about. Most of the junk is in low earth orbit, and you won't want to hang about near home, surely?

[Petrochemicals]

If you do not wish to allow the space junk to degrade in its orbit naturally and thus burn up of its own accord, you would have to decelerate/alter the orbit or the space junk, that would require alot of fuel. To get the fuel up there you would have to fire many more rockets up, or more probably a reusable space shuttle as you do not wish to create more space junk.

[bearnard1212 (OP)]

The problem is not about it burning in the atmosphere since if it was in the atmosphere, it wouldn't be space junk. Thus very little of space junk poses a danger to Earth population since most of Earth's population is in said atmosphere where the space junk isn't. Some big pieces de-orbiting (Skylab for instance, also the Columbia) do pose a danger, but humans are remarkably small targets to hit, and the general influx of normal meteors poses a much larger threat, and even then it is incredible news when one of them actually manages to injure somebody.

So the problem is the threat posed by the stuff to non-junk satellites.  There is almost nothing one can do about it unless we can invent some sort of tangential tractor beam, which is pure science fiction. The idea is to get these objects to actually hit the atmosphere instead of continuously missing it.

The largest problem about space junk is that it is dangerous for the spacecraft that can collide with this space junk and damage a space ship and put whole mission that can cost a fortune under thread. I know that some space comoany wants to make a mission which is about to clean this space debris somehow to avoid these colisions.

[bearnard1212 (OP)]

The consideration to keep in mind is called space junk, we got quite some trash up there in orbit of our planet. It's considered not to be a problem due that the size of the object would burn in our atmosphere. But what do we need do about the space junk? And is there a possibility that space junk might be dangerous for Earth and its` population?

[Hayseed]

I would look at it in a different way.....and propose a proof of concept experiment.  We track the big pieces with radar.  I would put a UV or x-ray laser in orbit, and see if we could ionize the junk object, and see what affect it had on it's orbit.    I would not rely on any simulation or opinions.  If that alone doesn't work, a magnetic field can decelerate the charged object. Space robot cowboys.

But even if we could remove the large junk, there is still a great problem, and that is all the "speck" junk.  Perhaps a high powered x-ray emitter, to ionize, flying in a grid search fashion, might charge the specks.

[bearnard1212 (OP)]

I would look at it in a different way.....and propose a proof of concept experiment.  We track the big pieces with radar.  I would put a UV or x-ray laser in orbit, and see if we could ionize the junk object, and see what affect it had on it's orbit.    I would not rely on any simulation or opinions.  If that alone doesn't work, a magnetic field can decelerate the charged object. Space robot cowboys.

But even if we could remove the large junk, there is still a great problem, and that is all the "speck" junk.  Perhaps a high powered x-ray emitter, to ionize, flying in a grid search fashion, might charge the specks.

I found out that some space company is going to make so called cleaning mission that is about to clean Earth`s orbit from space junk. Cleanup represents the first step towards a clean space environment by being the first space debris removal dedicated mission.

[charles1948]

Although I appreciate the environmental issues raised by previous posters on this topic, I do quite like the thought that we've put all those satellites, and even bits of junk, into space.

It gives me a feeling of pride, in our human accomplishment.  Does anyone else feel the same?  I mean, looking up at the starry night sky, and seeing one of our artificial satellites travel quietly and routinely among the stars, and think:

"We did that"!

[Bored chemist]

Although I appreciate the environmental issues raised by previous posters on this topic, I do quite like the thought that we've put all those satellites, and even bits of junk, into space.

It gives me a feeling of pride, in our human accomplishment.  Does anyone else feel the same?  I mean, looking up at the starry night sky, and seeing one of our artificial satellites travel quietly and routinely among the stars, and think:

"We did that"!

Do you feel the same about this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch

[bearnard1212 (OP)]

Although I appreciate the environmental issues raised by previous posters on this topic, I do quite like the thought that we've put all those satellites, and even bits of junk, into space.

It gives me a feeling of pride, in our human accomplishment.  Does anyone else feel the same?  I mean, looking up at the starry night sky, and seeing one of our artificial satellites travel quietly and routinely among the stars, and think:

"We did that"!

The big number of space items can cause to what is known as the ‘Kessler syndrome’, which represents a state where the object density is so high that it can cause collisions.

[evan_au]

Cleanup represents the first step towards a clean space environment by being the first space debris removal dedicated mission

The problem is that changing your orbit requires an enormous amount of fuel.
Such a mission can only hope to rendezvous with 1 piece of space junk and deorbit it.

It takes almost an entirely new mission to rendezvous with the next piece of junk (unless they are in a nice line, in a common orbital plane, like Starlink, geosynchronous  or GPS satellites).

[bearnard1212 (OP)]

The Clearspace-1 satellite, or ‘The Claw’, represents the first step towards a clean space environment by being the first space debris removal dedicated mission

The problem is that changing your orbit requires an enormous amount of fuel.
Such a mission can only hope to rendezvous with 1 piece of space junk and deorbit it.

It takes almost an entirely new mission to rendezvous with the next piece of junk (unless they are in a nice line, in a common orbital plane, like Starlink, geosynchronous  or GPS satellites).

According to the information I found on the website of The satellite uses a pincer motion in order to capture the Vespa stage using its robotic arms. Following the seize of the rocket piece, the spacecraft and the captured object will re-enter the atmosphere and burn together. In order to successfully grab the debris item. As far as I know, GPS system is being still developed.

[charles1948]

The quickest way to get rid of the orbiting satellites, would be to start a global nuclear war. In such a war the combatant countries, America, Russia and China, would for military purposes, shoot down all the satellites.

Thus cleansing the sky of large chunks of material.  Smaller bits would remain, and indeed be very abundant.

In the form of shattered debris from the military spy-satellites, GPS satellites, communication satellites, the Hubble Space Telescope, and so on, shot down during the war.

But these fragments would soon decay from orbit, and burn up as harmless meteors.  Leaving the sky clean!

Is this a environmental argument for the benefits of immediate nuclear war?

[yor_on]

I think I'm getting infatuated BC

[bearnard1212 (OP)]

The quickest way to get rid of the orbiting satellites, would be to start a global nuclear war. In such a war the combatant countries, America, Russia and China, would for military purposes, shoot down all the satellites.

Thus cleansing the sky of large chunks of material.  Smaller bits would remain, and indeed be very abundant.

In the form of shattered debris from the military spy-satellites, GPS satellites, communication satellites, the Hubble Space Telescope, and so on, shot down during the war.

But these fragments would soon decay from orbit, and burn up as harmless meteors.  Leaving the sky clean!

Is this a environmental argument for the benefits of immediate nuclear war?

Space junk include not only satellites. There are a lot of used parts of rockets and space shuttles Also, there are satellites and microsatellites that don`t work anymore and just hover in Earth`s orbit. I guess we need to use special technology that can clean our orbit from space debris

[yor_on]

A chance for profits, recycling satellites. Lot's and lot's of rare earth in them I guess. But mostly they burn up. You could make it a International law that once they've done 'their thing', they still should be able to push themselves to earth to burn. But with the new types of micro satellite's miniaturized to a extreme degree we might not even notice them.  Well, maybe? The problem relates to the scale of them, doesn't it?

[Halc]

The quickest way to get rid of the orbiting satellites, would be to start a global nuclear war.

This just reduces thousands of satellites in controlled orbits to millions of fragments in uncontrolled orbits.  It would multiply the hazard a thousandfold.
On the plus side, said war would essentially remove the problem since no new satellites would go up and all the new junk up there won't bother anybody anymore.

In such a war the combatant countries, America, Russia and China, would for military purposes, shoot down all the satellites.

You can't shoot one down. At best you can blow it to bits, which just gets you a lot of bits. It's not like an airplane where the bits all fall to the ground when you 'shoot it down'.  A few chunks will be in orbits that now intersect Earth, but most will not.

But these fragments would soon decay from orbit, and burn up as harmless meteors.  Leaving the sky clean!

That would require their kinetic energy to go somewhere. How does that work? If it did, there wouldn't be a significant space junk problem in the first place.
Yes, there are tiny molecules of gas up there and the friction with them will bring down the lower satellites after many centuries, but most orbits are too high to wait for this process.