In "The Future of Space: Cluttered Space" (August 2010) Popular Science's David Kushner discusses the dangers posed by space trash to astronauts and spacecraft, and the current scientific proposals to remove the trash. This article uses science by explaining how each device would remove the debris from low earth orbit, and the pros, cons, and plausibility of each device. It uses laymens language to explain the dangers posed and how important it is that we remove this debris that is of our own creation. The article explains the science behind each device, how it works, is made, and if it would actually work to push the debris out of orbit where it would burn up in Earth's atmosphere.
Did you know that currently there are over 500,000 man made objects in low earth orbit bigger than 4/10 of an inch? Did you know that an object 4/100 of an inch could kill an astronaut? NASA currently predicts a "catastrophic collision" once every 20 years. These figures give some understanding of the threat this space trash poses.
This article examines the possibilities of using lasers, solar sails, tethers and nets, space mist, robots and adhesives to remove said objects out of low earth orbit into our atmosphere, where the objects would burn up.
The article appears to be written for anyone interested in the space program and in new technologies to do with space objects. The indicators that give clues to the audience are the explanations posed to the threat to the space program and those involved in space. No mention of any dangers posed to objects or people on the planet are ever mentioned. Also, the article gives a good explanation of how each device would work, what materials it would be made of, and the pros, cons, and plausibility of the devices actually working. This would seem to only be interesting to those interested in space and new scientific technologies.
And with the end of the shuttle program, writers may be trying to keep an interest in space alive with the hopes of gaining more funding (which also might influence the audience). Good reflection and an interesting article. What about the article caught your attention (and why did you choose it to write about?)
ReplyDeleteWhat caught my attention about the article was how much of a problem space trash in low earth orbit is really beginning to be. I really believe in the space program and space technologies, so I think it is important to rectify dangers when we identify them. These objects are a very real danger to anything or anyone out there. After all, they are traveling at 24,480 mph just to stay in orbit.
ReplyDeleteI chose to write about this article to keep people's interest in the space program alive, and to make them aware of the dangers. I don't think anyone could look at people's reactions to the shuttle disasters that we have had where people died and not realize that people do care about our astronauts getting killed. To me it would seem worse if it were from our littering space. That is irresponsible.
Our country has always been a country of innovation. This is one of the major things that has kept our economy alive. Look at companies like Apple or Microsoft. Imagine how many Americans are employed because of the technologies that they have invented. Does anyone think they are not doing well in this economy?
To me, shutting down the space program is a step in the wrong direction. They do invent a lot of things. Did you know WD40 was invented by NASA scientists? Lots of other well used items were too. Here are just a few: invisible braces, scratch-resistant lenses, memory foam, ear thermometers, shoe insoles, long-distance telecommunications, adjustable smoke detectors, safety grooving, cordless tools, and water filters. In all, NASA has over 6300 patents on file with the U.S. Government. NASA was not just about launching shuttles. It was about science and technology, which could greatly aid this economy. Instead of shutting down the shuttle program, I think we should just get some of these government lawyers to make companies who use NASA patents to pay for their use & use the money to pay down the deficit. Everyone else has to pay if they use someone elses patent. Why should they not have to pay NASA?
Also, there is the matter of security. This article states that "not every country is providing details about what they have in orbit". Unless they have something up there that would pose a threat to the security of other nations, why would they not disclose it? If we are attacked from an object in orbit and we don't have a space program, how do we defend ourselves? Certainly not planes. Ground based high powered lasers would be our only other option currently, and it would be dependent on radar or lidar. If we can invent an SR22 Blackbird that is not detectable by radar....?
We also must consider global disasters. After all, one wiped out the dinosaurs. Obviously, we have had them in the past. There are impact craters in various places all over this planet. Many scientists agree that a large asteroid impact could end life on Earth as we know it. Also, eventually our sun will die. What do we do then? The sad truth is that eventually at some point mankind will need to leave this planet in order to survive. We can't do that without a space program. The problem with lasers is that if we hit an object in space with one, if it is very large, it will become several objects all of which we have to worry about ground impact from. This poses in several respects almost a worse danger.
We cannot afford to close down the space program for any length of time. There are just too many necessary things from it. If we cease to be a leader in science and innovation, will that benefit our economy? Definitely not! How about we just get out of NASA's way and let them do their jobs and put some government attorneys to work? After all, think how different life today would be without all the things NASA invented. Imagine where we could go... I think these things are important for people to know. That's why I chose this topic.