Let's Shoot Down Space Debris With Laser Guns

Recommended Videos

Fanghawk

New member
Feb 17, 2011
3,861
0
0
Let's Shoot Down Space Debris With Laser Guns

How do we get rid of pesky space debris? Let the International Space Station open fire with lasers!

These days it seems like <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/140170-Mars-One-Finalist-Claims-The-Operation-Isnt-a-Scam>everybody wants to go to space, but there's a hurdle in the way - increasing amounts of space debris. Between <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/137087-Lockheed-Martin-Electro-Optic-Systems-Tracking-Space-Garbage-Debris-Australia>all the defunct satellites and spent rocket stages floating around, there's all kinds of clutter future astronauts will have to navigate around. Thankfully, a team of researchers have proposed a fantastic sci-fi solution: Fix laser guns onto the International Space Station and <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/108524-NASA-Wants-to-Shoot-Lasers-at-Space-Trash>shoot debris out of the sky.

Published in the journal Acta Astronautica, the plan is fairly straightforward - and awesome. First, the <a href=http://jem-euso.uchicago.edu/instrument.php>Extreme Universe Space Observatory telescope would be modified to track space junk - effectively turning the telescope into a sniper's scope. Then the ISS would use a fiber optic CAN laser to fire upon objects, degrading their orbit to burn up in reentry. Considering these lasers were once used to power <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/138990-Lawrence-Berkeley-National-Laboratorys-Laser-Plasma-Particle-Accelerator-Breaks-Energy-Record>particle accelerators, they'd be more than suitable for the task.

According to the team's estimates, this system could track and destroy objects as small as a centimeter in diameter, which is important - even small space debris could mess up an astronaut's day. And while the cynicist in me worries this <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/139018-Navy-Tests-Laser-Weapon-System-In-Arabian-Gulf>is the first step towards full blown space warfare, at least it's a deterrent <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112412-Fake-an-Alien-Invasion-Save-the-U-S-Economy>for those potential alien invasions we've been expecting for decades.

Source: <a href=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576515000867>Acta Astronautica, via <a href=http://www.engadget.com/2015/04/17/scientists-want-to-blast-space-debris-with-frickin-lasers/?ncid=rss_truncated>Engadget

Permalink
 

Neurotic Void Melody

Bound to escape
Legacy
Jul 15, 2013
4,953
6
13
I'll just go ahead and ask what everyone will be thinking; Will they make any "pew-pew" noises? And if not, can the sound effect be added via helmet speaker?

This sounds like a pretty useful strategy for now, though it seems like it would play out like an Asteriods: Revenge of the Litter Edition.
 

tm96

New member
Feb 1, 2014
200
0
0
Xsjadoblayde said:
I'll just go ahead and ask what everyone will be thinking; Will they make any "pew-pew" noises? And if not, can the sound effect be added via helmet speaker?
If they don't I'll be really disappointed.
 

Bob_McMillan

Elite Member
Aug 28, 2014
5,512
2,126
118
Country
Philippines
I will bet my entire life savings that one shooter franchise or another will use this in a game one day.

Also, what exactly is the point if this? I mean the only way that this thing would make a difference is if the laser is on and blasting things 24/7.
 

Areloch

It's that one guy
Dec 10, 2012
623
0
0
Bob_McMillan said:
I will bet my entire life savings that one shooter franchise or another will use this in a game one day.

Also, what exactly is the point if this? I mean the only way that this thing would make a difference is if the laser is on and blasting things 24/7.
The alternative would be?

Yes, the cleanup process will be fairly slow, but it needs to start somewhere, and having a system in place to kick it off is hardly a bad thing.
 

Bob_McMillan

Elite Member
Aug 28, 2014
5,512
2,126
118
Country
Philippines
Areloch said:
Bob_McMillan said:
I will bet my entire life savings that one shooter franchise or another will use this in a game one day.

Also, what exactly is the point if this? I mean the only way that this thing would make a difference is if the laser is on and blasting things 24/7.
The alternative would be?

Yes, the cleanup process will be fairly slow, but it needs to start somewhere, and having a system in place to kick it off is hardly a bad thing.
Maybe just not going into space at all? I mean, those astronauts seem to be doing just fine without all the lasering. And considering that having to build and maintain more of said lasers would require materials to be launched into space, they would probably just reduce all the debris by a little bit, but never by a significant amount. At least, that's what I think will happen. Maybe these lasers don't even need to be maintained, solar powered or some sort.
 

Hero in a half shell

It's not easy being green
Dec 30, 2009
4,286
0
0
Fanghawk said:
According to the team's estimates, this system could track and destroy objects as small as a centimeter in diameter, which is important - even small space debris could mess up an astronaut's day. And while the cynicist in me worries this <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/139018-Navy-Tests-Laser-Weapon-System-In-Arabian-Gulf>is the first step towards full blown space warfare, at least it's a deterrent <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112412-Fake-an-Alien-Invasion-Save-the-U-S-Economy>for those potential alien invasions we've been expecting for decades.

Source: <a href=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576515000867>Acta Astronautica, via <a href=http://www.engadget.com/2015/04/17/scientists-want-to-blast-space-debris-with-frickin-lasers/?ncid=rss_truncated>Engadget

Permalink
If they make the targeting system manual then we will have officially found the coolest job on earth.

"What do you do?"

"I shoot down space debris in the upper atmosphere with a lazer satellite for NASA." *lights cigar*
 

MonsterCrit

New member
Feb 17, 2015
594
0
0
This may well be the doom of humanity but... yeah This will be awesome and must happen.

I'm sorry I know.. it's crazy but yeah, my 'Oh Yeah' reflex is overriding the ' This will Destroy us all your Fool!' centre of my brain.
 

Recusant

New member
Nov 4, 2014
699
0
0
Bob_McMillan said:
Areloch said:
Bob_McMillan said:
I will bet my entire life savings that one shooter franchise or another will use this in a game one day.

Also, what exactly is the point if this? I mean the only way that this thing would make a difference is if the laser is on and blasting things 24/7.
The alternative would be?

Yes, the cleanup process will be fairly slow, but it needs to start somewhere, and having a system in place to kick it off is hardly a bad thing.
Maybe just not going into space at all? I mean, those astronauts seem to be doing just fine without all the lasering. And considering that having to build and maintain more of said lasers would require materials to be launched into space, they would probably just reduce all the debris by a little bit, but never by a significant amount. At least, that's what I think will happen. Maybe these lasers don't even need to be maintained, solar powered or some sort.
"Staying on Earth and dying when the sun overheats the planet" isn't really a viable alternative.

I do worry that this would violate that space neutrality treaty (or whatever it was called), though. The treaty could probably be changed, but I don't think Russia's in the mood to play ball, even if the alternative is dooming our planet to Kessler Syndrome.
 

RicoADF

Welcome back Commander
Jun 2, 2009
3,147
0
0
Recusant said:
"Staying on Earth and dying when the sun overheats the planet" isn't really a viable alternative.

I do worry that this would violate that space neutrality treaty (or whatever it was called), though. The treaty could probably be changed, but I don't think Russia's in the mood to play ball, even if the alternative is dooming our planet to Kessler Syndrome.
If my memory serves me well that treaty banned WMDs, so Nuclear Biological and Chemical weapons are banned. A laser used to shoot down junk is not. Also if it's only used for cleaning up then technically it's a tool not a weapon :p
 

Armyguy0

New member
Oct 23, 2010
24
0
0
RicoADF said:
Recusant said:
"Staying on Earth and dying when the sun overheats the planet" isn't really a viable alternative.

I do worry that this would violate that space neutrality treaty (or whatever it was called), though. The treaty could probably be changed, but I don't think Russia's in the mood to play ball, even if the alternative is dooming our planet to Kessler Syndrome.
If my memory serves me well that treaty banned WMDs, so Nuclear Biological and Chemical weapons are banned. A laser used to shoot down junk is not. Also if it's only used for cleaning up then technically it's a tool not a weapon :p
I can one up that the Salyut 3 space station had a autocannon on it.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/almaz_ops2.html
 

The_Great_Galendo

New member
Sep 14, 2012
186
0
0
Bob_McMillan said:
Areloch said:
Bob_McMillan said:
I will bet my entire life savings that one shooter franchise or another will use this in a game one day.

Also, what exactly is the point if this? I mean the only way that this thing would make a difference is if the laser is on and blasting things 24/7.
The alternative would be?

Yes, the cleanup process will be fairly slow, but it needs to start somewhere, and having a system in place to kick it off is hardly a bad thing.
Maybe just not going into space at all? I mean, those astronauts seem to be doing just fine without all the lasering. And considering that having to build and maintain more of said lasers would require materials to be launched into space, they would probably just reduce all the debris by a little bit, but never by a significant amount. At least, that's what I think will happen. Maybe these lasers don't even need to be maintained, solar powered or some sort.
The point is that it cleans up the area a little bit. It's like picking up trash at the park. Are you going to pick up all the trash? No. But every little bit helps.

Plus, the amount of debris up there is just growing. Unless we do something about it, eventually we won't be able to get anything up there at all. 'cause unlike the trash at the park, bumping into this debris costs you millions of dollars and possibly lives.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Sounds good on first glance, but is not as good as it may seem. If the laser can blast the debris into the atmosphere or to fly off it would be nice. fracturing it would mean just have smaller more sharp pieces flying around doing more damage. I wouldnt count on it just yet.

Bob_McMillan said:
Maybe just not going into space at all? I mean, those astronauts seem to be doing just fine without all the lasering. And considering that having to build and maintain more of said lasers would require materials to be launched into space, they would probably just reduce all the debris by a little bit, but never by a significant amount. At least, that's what I think will happen. Maybe these lasers don't even need to be maintained, solar powered or some sort.
Thats not an alternative. Not going to space is not really an option considering that space exploration has been the most useful technolgical advancement in human history. The technologies discovered while trying to explore space had the best investment/return ratios of anything else in human history. Its not really an option to not do it.

And no, those astronauts are not doing fine. there is a lot of problems involved by debris making liftoffs not possible and debris crashing and destroying sattelites. most of sattelites fuel is used to navigate and avoid debris nowadays.
 

Kahani

New member
May 25, 2011
927
0
0
Strazdas said:
Sounds good on first glance, but is not as good as it may seem. If the laser can blast the debris into the atmosphere or to fly off it would be nice. fracturing it would mean just have smaller more sharp pieces flying around doing more damage. I wouldnt count on it just yet.
The laser doesn't "blast" anything, it simply vaporises tiny amounts of the surface of an object in order to alter its velocity, the aim being to slow debris down so that it drops out of orbit and burns up on re-entry. It's not a new idea at all, although this is the first time I've heard of it being proposed being sited entirely in orbit rather than ground based. And there's a good reason for that - on the ground you have essentially unlimited power, while in space you're extremely limited. You would get a bit of gain from not having to fire through the atmosphere, but I don't think that would be anywhere near enough to compensate for the cost of getting everything required, especially generation capacity, into orbit.

RicoADF said:
If my memory serves me well that treaty banned WMDs, so Nuclear Biological and Chemical weapons are banned. A laser used to shoot down junk is not.
Correct, the Outer Space Treaty bans weapons of mass destruction from space, but not weapons in general (although weapons and military activity are banned from the Moon and other celestial bodies). However, this is still the main reason this idea has never really gone anywhere. The Outer Space Treaty wouldn't even apply to the more realistic ground based proposals, but just because something isn't banned doesn't mean everyone will be happy if a country starts building weapons capable of knocking everyone else's satellites out of the sky. It's a shame, because space debris is becoming a real problem and we could have started dealing with it years ago, but at this point it's not a technological problem at all, it's entirely a political one.
 

Recusant

New member
Nov 4, 2014
699
0
0
RicoADF said:
Recusant said:
"Staying on Earth and dying when the sun overheats the planet" isn't really a viable alternative.

I do worry that this would violate that space neutrality treaty (or whatever it was called), though. The treaty could probably be changed, but I don't think Russia's in the mood to play ball, even if the alternative is dooming our planet to Kessler Syndrome.
If my memory serves me well that treaty banned WMDs, so Nuclear Biological and Chemical weapons are banned. A laser used to shoot down junk is not. Also if it's only used for cleaning up then technically it's a tool not a weapon :p
You're right. I went and looked it up, and all it bans (in weaponry terms) is NBC stuff. However... you have never argued with a lawyer, have you?