It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: butcherguy
Sounds like we need a real life version of a 1970's tv sitcom.
Quark was set on a space sanitation cruiser.... picking up space trash.
It might sound inconsistent to the uninformed but when you learn that NASA doesn't track the smallest objects the discrepancies in count start to make sense. In fact someone at NASA said the biggest risk to space missions comes from the millions of pieces of debris they don't track. This article from NASA just says "many millions" for the total count, but nobody knows the exact count since the smallest objects can't be tracked.
originally posted by: MarkOfTheV
No but I am questioning the head of Australia's Space Environment Research Centre, Ben Greene. He is the one who came up with the 170 million pieces of junk number.
That just sounds outrageous when Nasa.Gov says they are tracking only about 500,000.
There are more than 20,000 pieces of debris larger than a softball orbiting the Earth. They travel at speeds up to 17,500 mph, fast enough for a relatively small piece of orbital debris to damage a satellite or a spacecraft. There are 500,000 pieces of debris the size of a marble or larger. There are many millions of pieces of debris that are so small they can’t be tracked.
Even tiny paint flecks can damage a spacecraft when traveling at these velocities. In fact a number of space shuttle windows have been replaced because of damage caused by material that was analyzed and shown to be paint flecks.
“The greatest risk to space missions comes from non-trackable debris,” said Nicholas Johnson, NASA chief scientist for orbital debris.
No, that would just add the micro pellets to the debris problem, and possibly damage or destroy some satellites, which is what they want to avoid.
originally posted by: Antipathy17
a reply to: trollz
Could you not shotgun micro pellets into sections of space and change a lof of the debris orbit? Either pushing the debris out or even in?
originally posted by: firefromabove
How come satellites never crash into each other?
WASHINGTON - Iridium Satellite LLC confirmed today that one of its satellites was destroyed Tuesday in an unprecedented collision with a spent Russian satellite and that the incident could result in limited disruptions of service.
How come satellites are never destroyed by meteors that are allegedly entering earth very frequently?
Of the roughly 8000 satellites that have been launched, which would seem to result in a veritable shooting ground for meteors, only one has ever been hit and subsequently destroyed by such a force. The European Space Agency's communications satellite, Olympus, suffered that fate in 1993. Satellites are programmed to avoid events like the Perseid showers, but that year, the Perseids shifted.