It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

International Space Station may get laser cannon to vaporize orbital debris

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: engineercutout

originally posted by: InTheLight
So, they are using the word 'vaporize', which means that there will be leftover gases and such, most likely toxic, which has only one place to go...into our atmosphere. I think this needs more thought.

No, actually, this is overdue, in my opinion. Space debris is no joke. ONE accident, if it were severe enough, could make entering orbit in one piece impossible for as much as hundreds of years.


I am not saying it is not overdue, rather that they are not considering our environment (yet again) when trying to fix one problem why is it that they always seem to create another problem.




posted on May, 21 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobw927
Will they use it on Aliens that come by the ISS every now and then?


What they're not telling you: it's mounted to point inside.


"Guest House VII: They overstayed their welcome. The landlord is pissed. And Russian."



That Tang intoxication......

edit on 21-5-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-5-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-5-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-5-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-5-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

I am not saying it is not overdue, rather that they are not considering our environment (yet again) when trying to fix one problem why is it that they always seem to create another problem.

I guess I should've phrased my reply better. You raise a valid point, but we have to address space debris as soon as possible. That one bad accident could happen anytime. I personally wish we had been more proactive about this issue before now. We should have some cookie monster type sattelites up there too, going around and capturing pieces of debris in their bellies.

Those smaller pieces, though...I think vaporizing them is the only fix our present technology will allow for. Capturing all of those smaller pieces would probably take a really long time, like a few hundred years or so. I could be wrong on that though. Maybe they're just being lazy about it. I think it would take quite some time to line up to capture each piece safely, and then you'd have to set up a different trajectory for each piece.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:07 PM
link   
A hyper velocity net gun would be better. nets made up of carbon nanofiber/diamond fiber. launch it at relativistic speed it will move debris away.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 04:31 AM
link   
a reply to: bobw927

If Aliens exist i imagine firing the Laser device at them would be a bit like shooting a spitball at a Rhinoceros. Given that there craft most lightly(pun intended) have the capability to cross the vast distances between stars i imagine there technology and hence there defensive capabilities would make any such exercise rather pointless.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 04:34 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

How would you fire such a device in space without influencing the orbital trajectory of the station? What i mean is would the station not need to use maneuvering thrusters to compensate?
edit on 22-5-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 04:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: yuppa

How would you fire such a device in space without influencing the orbital trajectory of the station? What i mean is would the station not need to use maneuvering thrusters to compensate?

Laser would not have kick back.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 04:56 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Hence there reason for them using beam weaponry or laser. However Yuppa is suggesting the use of some form of hyper velocity net gun which as far as i can see would indeed influence the stations trajectory if and when fired.
edit on 22-5-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 05:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Hence there reason for them using beam weaponry or laser. However Yuppa is suggesting the use of some form of hyper velocity net gun which as far as i can see would indeed influence the stations trajectory if and when fired.

Ahh I see. Yes, launching a projectile would indeed require keeping the station in orbit, and would not be feasible probably.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Hence there reason for them using beam weaponry or laser. However Yuppa is suggesting the use of some form of hyper velocity net gun which as far as i can see would indeed influence the stations trajectory if and when fired.


true true. E=MC squared is a pain in the arse.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   


Catch 'em, drag 'em, blast 'em

Using a net is just one of the many proposed solutions to the orbital debris problem (see main story).

• Sweep it up: A team at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne is building a robot, CleanSpaceOne, to sweep up junk. It will deploy grippers inspired by jellyfish to embrace the target before steering itself on a suicide dive into Earth's atmosphere.

• Drag it down: European aerospace company EADS Astrium wants to give satellites in-built sails to act as an "orbital brake", dragging them into Earth's atmosphere.

• Blast it away: Boeing wants to send up a rocket that could dispel the debris with blasts of inert gas. Others want to use lasers to clear the way.




www.newscientist.com...

I was thinking perhaps a magnetic-type netting device/spacecraft to capture all sizes of space debris and then shoost it off towards the sun, or recycle and reuse.

Again, most of these ideas/designs end up with dragging the debris into Earth's atmosphere to be burned up, with no regard to toxic gases being injected into our atmosphere...out of sight...out of mind mentality?

More on the blast 'em idea, of course my concern is after blastin' 'em what becomes of the remaining gas:




Discussion:-

1. Continuous qualitative change in the velocity of expanding ions liberated upon ablation which is to be examined in space in order to efficiently condense the liberated matter. The condenser comprises of varying electric fields which can be ideal in condensing them while keeping the energy and size minimal.
2. Precise orbit and angle of incidence of laser beam on the debris is most important because of the vast distances in space and any error may result in secondary damage either from the liberated material or the laser light itself hence care needs to be taken.
3. Space debris of size >10m must be made to fall back into the earth’s atmosphere due to the limitations of the technology to completely ablate it. However even if it’s ablated the chances are that the gases will cause further damage to future missions or the existing ones.



cddis.gsfc.nasa.gov...

edit on 22-5-2015 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 05:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: engineercutout

No, they'd be vaporizing the object. Essentially they would heat the object until all of it boils away as a gas. The pieces would all be molecule sized at that point.

I wanted to quote this because I wanted to correct myself here to add that they could also use the laser to maneuver larger objects into reentering the atmosphere. Into The Light's last post reminded me of that.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Isn't this really the best option, that is, if we have absolutely no other choice but to drag the debris into Earth's atmosphere? It is much easier to dodge one large object (towing space debris) that dealing with a lasered mess.




posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
Isn't this really the best option, that is, if we have absolutely no other choice but to drag the debris into Earth's atmosphere? It is much easier to dodge one large object (towing space debris) that dealing with a lasered mess.


Better than trying to laser jet maneuver a piece of debris into reentry, I'd guess. I'd also guess that the burnup in reentry would present your same concern as vaporizing it would in terms of adding foreign material to the atmospheric mix.

I think the best option, though, would be to devise a way to recycle the orbital debris in orbit. It's already up there, and it takes a lot of energy to get it there. We ought to figure out a way to reuse it. An orbital recycling plant.
edit on 24-5-2015 by engineercutout because: edit



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: engineercutout

originally posted by: InTheLight
Isn't this really the best option, that is, if we have absolutely no other choice but to drag the debris into Earth's atmosphere? It is much easier to dodge one large object (towing space debris) that dealing with a lasered mess.


Better than trying to laser jet maneuver a piece of debris into reentry, I'd guess. I'd also guess that the burnup in reentry would present your same concern as vaporizing it would in terms of adding foreign material to the atmospheric mix.

I think the best option, though, would be to devise a way to recycle the orbital debris in orbit. It's already up there, and it takes a lot of energy to get it there. We ought to figure out a way to reuse it. An orbital recycling plant.


I was just reading where most of the space debris is Russian, so if another country captures their property, could they claim ownership?

Actually, that may have been an older article, it seems the U.S. and Russia are tied, with China in the lead.



With their extensive space exploration programs, Russia and the US are regarded among the world leaders cluttering up near-Earth orbits, being responsible for 25.5 and 27.5 percent of space junk respectively.

Yet China remains the absolute space junk leader claiming an estimated 40 percent of manmade objects in space. Beijing took over leadership in the space junk stakes in a single event on January 11, 2007, when People’s Liberation Army tested an anti-satellite missile. (my quote: the stupidity boggles the mind)


rt.com...

edit on 24-5-2015 by InTheLight because: grammar

edit on 24-5-2015 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

"Return our property at once! Those paint chips are official property of the motherland!" I would guess that maritime law will come into play up there eventually, if it hasn't already. Law of the sea, and the laws governing salvage at sea.



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: engineercutout

It probably will because the space debris must have salvageable, expensive technology that one could resell for millions of dollars.

However, it appears the recycling/repairing existing space hardware is underway by the U.S. military. Does this mean that wars will be waged in (or from) space in the near future?




DARPA hopes Phoenix develops tools and capabilities that will allow satellites to be inspected, serviced, upgraded and assembled on orbit, extending the lifespan of existing space assets and significantly reducing the cost of future satellites.


www.space.com...
edit on 25-5-2015 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: engineercutout

However, it appears the recycling/repairing existing space hardware is underway by the U.S. military. Does this mean that wars will be waged in (or from) space in the near future?


I think in a full on war between the powers warfare in or from space would just be part of the equation. Space superiority would definitely provide advantages to whoever could maintain it.



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: engineercutout

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: engineercutout

However, it appears the recycling/repairing existing space hardware is underway by the U.S. military. Does this mean that wars will be waged in (or from) space in the near future?


I think in a full on war between the powers warfare in or from space would just be part of the equation. Space superiority would definitely provide advantages to whoever could maintain it.


So, then, it appears the only motivation for cleaning up this problem, would be to make room for war machines.



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

So, then, it appears the only motivation for cleaning up this problem, would be to make room for war machines.

Debris obstruction will apply to any mission, warlike or not. Besides, I'm pretty sure the war machines you seem to be worried about are already up there, and have been for many years. Perhaps to make room for more war machines, or the next generation of them or whatever, but let's hope not.
edit on 25-5-2015 by engineercutout because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join