Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Idina Menzel will clean up space junk??

I don’t think this is the responsibility of individuals to clean up. Governments have to make sure companies and gov agencies clean up after themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

The thing I’m talking about is a was rather than an is.  A really early rocket thing maybe 60’s. I read about it as history rather than watched it. They went after I think a telephone satellite with this capsule that split down the middle sideways.  It got stuck halfway open or something.  It was a big mess.

So, there is a big difference between these two missions. The mission I`ve mentioned is supposed to clean Earth`s orbit from all kinds of space junk. Nasa satellite retrieval was aimed only for their spacecraft the launch of which was not really successful ( as you are telling )

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, bearnard1212 said:

So, there is a big difference between these two missions. The mission I`ve mentioned is supposed to clean Earth`s orbit from all kinds of space junk. Nasa satellite retrieval was aimed only for their spacecraft the launch of which was not really successful ( as you are telling )

They’re not the same, but they were trying to do very similar things.  The thing is magnets aren’t a new thing.  They weren’t even a new thing back then.  Can you imagine a major space agency going after space junk with something as Rube Goldberg as what they did if they could have used a simple electromagnet?  The big problem with the concept of electromagnets is they only work on ferrous metals.  Specifically NOT aluminum.  The electromagnet thing stinks to high heaven.  Someone saying they can collect aluminum space junk with an electromagnet isn’t being honest. 

Edited by Bombastinator

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

They’re not the same, but they were trying to do very similar things.  The thing is magnets aren’t a new thing.  They weren’t even a new thing back then.  Can you imagine a major space agency going after space junk with something as Rube Goldberg as what they did if they could have used a simple electromagnet?  The big problem with the concept of electromagnets is they only work on ferrous metals.  Specifically NOT aluminum.  The electromagnet thing stinks to high heaven.  Someone saying they can collect aluminum space junk with an electromagnet isn’t being honest. 

Yeah, the conception of this two mission is similar. Lets wait for the launch of The Clearspace-1 satellite which is scheduled for 2025. As far as I know this satellite has already been tested and the result was rather successful, so I guess it must work and we will clean our orbit from space debris somehow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bearnard1212 said:

Yeah, the conception of this two mission is similar. Lets wait for the launch of The Clearspace-1 satellite which is scheduled for 2025. As far as I know this satellite has already been tested and the result was rather successful, so I guess it must work and we will clean our orbit from space debris somehow.

Fair enough.  If they can do it they can do it.  If thy can’t it will become clear

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick note i've been meaning to add. Aluminium is a fantastic material, (Ditto titanium), but that doesn't mean there will be no steel on a satellite. Whilst the specific difference vary depending on the alloys your comparing, (as well as things like ambient temperature, heat treatment, e.t.c.),  in general both Aluminium and Titanium are primarily superior in strength to weight, but there are a lot of other factors that can be very relevant depending on the application and steel isn't automatically inferiour in those situations. So it's entirely possibble, perhaps probable that a significant percentage of satellites have something fr a magnet to attach to. Probably in the region of any thruster systems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CarlBar said:

Quick note i've been meaning to add. Aluminium is a fantastic material, (Ditto titanium), but that doesn't mean there will be no steel on a satellite. Whilst the specific difference vary depending on the alloys your comparing, (as well as things like ambient temperature, heat treatment, e.t.c.),  in general both Aluminium and Titanium are primarily superior in strength to weight, but there are a lot of other factors that can be very relevant depending on the application and steel isn't automatically inferiour in those situations. So it's entirely possibble, perhaps probable that a significant percentage of satellites have something fr a magnet to attach to. Probably in the region of any thruster systems.

very interesting to know
I will say though that this particular plan involves adding a matching magnet to any future spacecraft, it is not targeting attracting currently orbiting junk. I'm assuming electro magnet to make it smaller but stronger and create the pushing force when needed to discard into the atmosphere

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CarlBar said:

Quick note i've been meaning to add. Aluminium is a fantastic material, (Ditto titanium), but that doesn't mean there will be no steel on a satellite. Whilst the specific difference vary depending on the alloys your comparing, (as well as things like ambient temperature, heat treatment, e.t.c.),  in general both Aluminium and Titanium are primarily superior in strength to weight, but there are a lot of other factors that can be very relevant depending on the application and steel isn't automatically inferiour in those situations. So it's entirely possibble, perhaps probable that a significant percentage of satellites have something fr a magnet to attach to. Probably in the region of any thruster systems.

True, but it becomes a question of how often it is used and how close it is to the surface. Magnets don’t have a particularly long effective range.  If theyre within millimeters they can have a lot of pull.  Exceeding one gravity. If it’s more than that it can be a lot less though.  My memory is the satellite they attempted to scoop way back when had a skin made of aluminum and solar panels.  It apparently necessitated the system nasa attempted to use.  Remember electro magnet tech has NOT moved very far since the 60’s permanent magnets have neodymium and whatnot, but an electromagnets are more or less still bars wrapped in copper wire. There have been some things that for instance make them smaller, and they can pull various tricks to make the field effectively smaller and more efficient, which is one of the things tesla does to make its automotive motors more efficient than everyone else’s, but this doesn’t need smaller fields it needs bigger ones.  but they haven’t much changed the forces of magnetism.  There’s going to be a lot of stuff this thing just can’t lock on to. 

Edited by Bombastinator

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

Magnets don’t have a particularly long effective range.

The electromagnetic force has near-infinite range following the inverse square rule. If you can generate a great enough magnetic field, the force would be sufficient. Such a field would also be stronger than gravity barring ranges literally the size of galaxies.

Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler

^-^

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Elisis said:

The electromagnetic force has near-infinite range following the inverse square rule. If you can generate a great enough magnetic field, the force would be sufficient. Such a field would also be stronger than gravity barring ranges literally the size of galaxies.

The word is “effective”. If they can wait a week for the magnetic force of a magnet farther away to draw something in it is more possible, but I’m not sure they can do that.  Also if the closest the magnet can come to the ferrous metal still prevents it from useful attachment it still fails, and that could well be a quarter inch or less.

Edited by Bombastinator

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2021 at 2:09 AM, Jtalk4456 said:

Idina Menzel

That's easy for you to say, not so much for John Travolta 😄

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

I will say though that this particular plan involves adding a matching magnet to any future spacecraft,

 

Somehow missed this 🤦‍♂️, cheers for pointing it out. Any yes materials have wildly varying properties, in the real world there's very few free lunches, if a material appears to have huge advantages over another then generally, (not allways, new alloys shake things up all the time for one example, but as a rule of thumb it's good), that means it's got a weakness somwhere else. Now depending on the use case that weakness may not matter very much, but in other use cases it matters a lot. Sometimes the negetive might not matter from a use case PoV but may make manufacturing very difficult due to limitations on machining, casting, welding, e.t.c. Sometimes straight up cost can be an issue if it involves expensive elements or manufacturing techniques, (the later is a big reason Titanium isn't used in more places, it's so reactive at casting temperatures that it require inert atmospheres, and it's a huge pain to machine on any kind of scale, it still has material property issues in some applications compared to steel, but manufacturing issues limit it even beyond that).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Idina Menzel:

"The cold never bothered me anyway

...

But the junk in space does"

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2021 at 9:42 AM, CarlBar said:

 

Somehow missed this 🤦‍♂️, cheers for pointing it out. Any yes materials have wildly varying properties, in the real world there's very few free lunches, if a material appears to have huge advantages over another then generally, (not allways, new alloys shake things up all the time for one example, but as a rule of thumb it's good), that means it's got a weakness somwhere else. Now depending on the use case that weakness may not matter very much, but in other use cases it matters a lot. Sometimes the negetive might not matter from a use case PoV but may make manufacturing very difficult due to limitations on machining, casting, welding, e.t.c. Sometimes straight up cost can be an issue if it involves expensive elements or manufacturing techniques, (the later is a big reason Titanium isn't used in more places, it's so reactive at casting temperatures that it require inert atmospheres, and it's a huge pain to machine on any kind of scale, it still has material property issues in some applications compared to steel, but manufacturing issues limit it even beyond that).

Interesting.  I thought the big problem was until recently the only country that could produce it in quantity was the Soviet Union.  They made a whole submarine line out of it once that was nicknamed “the golden fish”.

 

Materials cost is generally trump by lift weight cost though, and the lightweight materials aren’t ferrous. 

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Interesting.  I thought the big problem was until recently the only country that could produce it in quantity was the Soviet Union.  They made a whole submarine line out of it once that was nicknamed “the golden fish”.

 

Materials cost is generally trump by lift weight cost though, and the lightweight materials aren’t ferrous. 

 

It's been producible in quantity for some time and heavily used in the aerospace industry for long before the soviet union fell. (The DC 10's engines used titanium fan disks for example). The soviet Union had more of the raw ore, but it's a real pain to refine and turn into useful products as it all has to be done in an inert atmosphere, (and for parts of the process you need a zero moisture environment, (it's a minimum 3 step process from raw ore to pure titanium, then another step to get an alloy)), even as an alloy you can't use it around pure oxygen or other strong oxidisers as it will auto ignite if the oxide layer gets scraped off.

 

As a sort of reverse example of the problems you can run into; when radiation hardening the Juno probe they built the shielding around the electronics out of titanium because the preferred lead, (probably a volume thing, Jupiter has a really rough radiation around it so you need serious shielding and titanium whilst less heavy for a given level of shielding is also way more voluminous), wouldn't handle the launch G's without deforming.

 

Your not wrong that lighter materials will be preferred, but remember rockets also have volume limits to their pay,loads and in many cases the cost is primarily per launch not per kg. there's going to be cases where the volume density or the carry capacity of the rocket vs the satellite mass makes going with steel desirable. basically your right that non-ferrous will be first choice for most things. But there's a ton of edge cases where other materials are good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is barely any junk out there, they seem to be misunderstanding the vastness of the incomprehensible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Zulu-Cheese-Alpha-IV said:

There is barely any junk out there, they seem to be misunderstanding the vastness of the incomprehensible.

This was discussed earlier in the thread.  This seems to be about predictability of orbits. Just one collision can apparently cause a major knock on effect and tiny objects with uncertain paths become effectively much larger for purposes of safety.  Satellites are really expansive and travel incredibly fast.  At speeds where spitballs can kill.  Safety margins have to be high.  Or something.  If there are a bunch of people saying the math works I suspect it works.  

Edited by Bombastinator

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

It's been producible in quantity for some time and heavily used in the aerospace industry for long before the soviet union fell. (The DC 10's engines used titanium fan disks for example). The soviet Union had more of the raw ore, but it's a real pain to refine and turn into useful products as it all has to be done in an inert atmosphere, (and for parts of the process you need a zero moisture environment, (it's a minimum 3 step process from raw ore to pure titanium, then another step to get an alloy)), even as an alloy you can't use it around pure oxygen or other strong oxidisers as it will auto ignite if the oxide layer gets scraped off.

 

As a sort of reverse example of the problems you can run into; when radiation hardening the Juno probe they built the shielding around the electronics out of titanium because the preferred lead, (probably a volume thing, Jupiter has a really rough radiation around it so you need serious shielding and titanium whilst less heavy for a given level of shielding is also way more voluminous), wouldn't handle the launch G's without deforming.

 

Your not wrong that lighter materials will be preferred, but remember rockets also have volume limits to their pay,loads and in many cases the cost is primarily per launch not per kg. there's going to be cases where the volume density or the carry capacity of the rocket vs the satellite mass makes going with steel desirable. basically your right that non-ferrous will be first choice for most things. But there's a ton of edge cases where other materials are good.

It had to do with ore deposits iirc.  For a long time they couldn’t turn the type of titanium dioxide in beach sand into titanium metal effectively, and much like how the US has most of the world’s helium, Russia had most of the mineral that folks could make titanium out of.  That changed I think before the Soviet Union fell. 

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

It had to do with ore deposits iirc.  For a long time they couldn’t turn the type of titanium dioxide in beach sand into titanium metal effectively, and much like how the US has most of the world’s helium, Russia had most of the mineral that folks could make titanium out of.  That changed I think before the Soviet Union fell. 

 

That makes sense though i'd have to do some digging to see what exactly changed.

 

Quick TLDR on Titanium production.

 

Starts by chlorination of the ore, the aim is to produce titanium tetra-chloride. It need to be pure for the next step so you'll have to purify it to get out all the other junk that might have been chlorinated along with it, (this would make titanium from sand an issue as there'd be a lot of silica at the start, the chlorinates of which you have to filter off). The titanium tetra-chloride will decompose in the presence of water or oxygen as well producing titanium dioxide and hydrogen chloride gas, (hence it's use for a good while in smoke shells), so inert atmospheres and dry conditions are a necessity. 

 

After that it gets put through the kroll process where titanium tetra-chloride is heated and mixed with liquid magnesium metal, (Again inert atmosphere and dry environment required), this reduces most the the starting material to magnesium chloride and titanium metal, with some of the lesser titanium chlorides mixed in, (titanium mono/di/tri-chloride), so you have to do an additional step, (few methods), to seperate out the pure titanium metal (>99% pure), which you can then use for alloying for most purposes. Very high spec stuff, (like fan disks in aerospace jet engines), need higher purities and that involves additional steps.

 

I suspect the change was in the chlorination step as beach sand doubtless includes a mountain of troublesome impurities, handling that in a commercially viable way is non-trivial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

how about we clean up our own planet first before we worry about space.

AMD blackout rig

 

cpu: ryzen 5 3600 @4.4ghz @1.35v

gpu: rx5700xt 2200mhz

ram: vengeance lpx c15 3200mhz

mobo: gigabyte b550 auros pro 

psu: cooler master mwe 650w

case: masterbox mbx520

fans:Noctua industrial 3000rpm x6

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Letgomyleghoe said:

how about we clean up our own planet first before we worry about space.

The two may have to go hand in hand.  Space is really handy for doing measurements from.  I take your point though.  I fear that it may be too late, but I take your point.  Even if it fails raging against the dying of the light is worth doing.

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zulu-Cheese-Alpha-IV said:

There is barely any junk out there, they seem to be misunderstanding the vastness of the incomprehensible.

While the vastness of space is indeed great, "barely" is not a word I'd use to describe the amount of space junk

image.png.bae8eb7a7fab3daff971ea16a16201f2.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

While the vastness of space is indeed great, "barely" is not a word I'd use to describe the amount of space junk

image.png.bae8eb7a7fab3daff971ea16a16201f2.png

Depends on how you think about it.  Deep in mind that scale wise each of those dots are about the size of England. 

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

about the size of England. 

that makes it even scarier...

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

While the vastness of space is indeed great, "barely" is not a word I'd use to describe the amount of space junk

image.png.bae8eb7a7fab3daff971ea16a16201f2.png

According to the information of the February 2020- over 2666 operational satellites and over 128 million pieces of debris flying around, the space junk issue has never been more pressing. The commercialisation of space is crowding Earth’s orbit at an unprecedented rate, with hundreds of spacecrafts being launched into space every year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×