We are probably using low orbits because they are the cheapest, easiest way to put things in space. Most of it is probably in a doughnut shape with the areas above the poles relatively junk free. Go high orbit and use junk free channels same way boats navigate close to shore. Low orbit must be really easy to do as one solution the video offered was pushing the stuff into higher orbits instead of working above it. Satellites would probably need more fuel to stay at higher orbits owing to more numerous course corrections and maybe more power to transmit the data. And if high orbit satellites can't do the same high quality surveillance of our everyday lives, oh well.
Sorry not listened to the article - listening to one about eDNA at Loch Ness, poop knives and the skeleton lovers (actual science!) -I'm a little confused about how the 'magnetic' repulsion system for redirecting debris (traveling at such speeds) will work... and is the best idea. First off, isn't magnetism the weak force when compared to gravity (regarding range)? Secondly, there are not that many magnetic materials used in space objects that would show much response (considering para/diamagnetic), and those that are, of such a small size that I find it unlikely that they'll affect the trajectory to any degree, if at all.
I get brainstorming ideas, but sometimes the tinfoil needs to come off your head first.
I tend to think that if the answer is 'why not use nukes?' (see other questions like 'how do we give Mars an atmosphere', 'how can we stop a hurricane', etc.) then it clearly is the wrong answerWhy not clear the debris with tactical nukes ?
Given that you haven't watched the video, you have pinpointed the problem exactly. You cannot catch small objects. It would be too difficult even to vapourise them with James Bond lasers because of their size. Yet each time there is a collision between two objects, it results in a lot more smaller objects, each with the same potential to cause disaster as the larger parent that they came from....It's the tiny and small bits that you will not be able to track that might hit and cause unexpected damage...
It's a big part of the novel Seveneves I think too. The fragmentation of objects in orbit.Given that you haven't watched the video, you have pinpointed the problem exactly. You cannot catch small objects. It would be too difficult even to vapourise them with James Bond lasers because of their size. Yet each time there is a collision between two objects, it results in a lot more smaller objects, each with the same potential to cause disaster as the larger parent that they came from.
I hadn't realised this. I thought that, given time, eventually everything would fall back to Earth and burn up. I also thought we had plans to catch objects and make them safe. However, the reality is that we will have a dense cloud of very small lethal objects, orbiting at great relative velocities, that will be impossible to remove.
I was not being serious .I tend to think that if the answer is 'why not use nukes?' (see other questions like 'how do we give Mars an atmosphere', 'how can we stop a hurricane', etc.) then it clearly is the wrong answer
Unless your question is 'how can I cause a great deal of destruction?'
Nukes probably are a good answer to that.
Well, if you are fitting this magnetic device to all satellites and craft then it doesn't really matter where you shift the debris to, I suppose! It will always be deflected (If this fabled device can work.)@Venusian Broon ; thanks for the explanations, but how much of a field could it really generate regarding range? IOW, past the problem of needing to orient this object (we don't want it bumping debris higher), if say you could generate a field a hundred meters which sounds impressive 'to me,' that's actually a minimal zone considering.
On the same token, it's not as though you're altering an orbit in a controllable fashion, so risk making matters worse (though temporarily). There is also the issue, I suspect, that if this magnetic generator can move an object, wouldn't that object would affect the MG, equal and opposite and all that?
Lastly, considering the velocity of some of these objects, placing it in a debris field of unknown objects, wouldn't there be the potential for this static field generator to become a target itself?
Those questions posed, what would make more sense to me (which doesn't mean it's right) is a magnetic field net. Not to catch or deflect, yet to slow the debris as much as possible. Then, let gravity do its thing.
To be honest, I am not sure such a system would be practical or plausable, I was just extrapolating from bits and pieces that I know, or can best guess at .