Russia wants to build 'Sweeper' to clean up space debris

clear way for space elevator in 2030

One person's trash is another's treasure. Or maybe in this case, spy satellite...

Or they're just looking for precedent of legal placement of nuclear device at the orbit.

http://billionyea...can.html

http://en.wikiped...e_Treaty

They failed to convince scientists about its usefulness - so now they're trying it again...

http://www.space....his.html

good idea, bad power source

Solar panels would be degraded or shadowed, or just broken during grappling attempts...

I thought they were proposing 'SplatNiks', aerogel blobs intended to soak up the small stuff...

By the time that this project development is in full swing, they will no doubt re-asses their intention of destroying those expensive toys in favour of salvaging them. It would be cheaper to just gather them all into one heap - a space junk yard - for future consideration.

baudrunner is correct. This stuff is salvagable and quite valuable, not only for the electronics, but for the refined materials available. Remember, aluminum can be used as rocket fuel. Not only is the Russian method flawed, but "we" can do in less time and less cost. See http://www.star-t...121.html

I've been waiting on something like this from Russians. They got a ton of cash sitting in the bank and they don't owe anyone.

While US has to cancel space missions cus they are broke, Ruskis and later China are going full on.

I think its a great idea ... instead of spending more and more money on monitoring the trash -- collect it and either scuttle it or recycle it -- either way its a win / win for space exploration... and lets face is the USA and the USSR are the major players who put the trash there in the first place ... and China blew some of the trash into smaller pieces of course.

It is about time someone started thinking about cleaning up the trash... we should back this effort as we only stand to gain from it... you know while most of the windows for luanch dates are about timing the rotation of the earth to a rendevous point, they are also impacted by how much debris they are expected to have to fly close to. this helps the whole world. and the commercial space industry.

Don't support Russian state capitalism, instead support the individual and private space firms who are working on this technology now without nuclear engines through VASIMIR.

http://en.wikiped...a_Rocket

Nuclear could be used for high speed Vasimir missions to Mars but not for satellite retrieval.

In space resource recovery. http://www.adastr...missions

I think it's a great idea.

I wonder if there will be political opposition from the idea of it being able to "accidentally" sweep up operational US satellites... Hopefully not.

It really should get done, and the US should contribute to a cooperative effort.

Space probes have been nuclear powered, so it's not like it's a new concept. The power source is going to need to be sufficient for numerous maneuvers just to approach these 600+ derelict satellites, and then to provide the inertia to direct the debris into a degrading orbit, all in addition to keeping the satellite's electronics operating. Normal satellites just have to have enough power for normal operations and occasional minor corrective burns, so they are not nearly the relative power hog this would be.

A small nuclear reactor isn't unreasonable as a power source capable of continuous output over an extended period without being prohibitively massive for launch and the demanding maneuvers. The radiation released should it break down and "crash" with a full tank, which would then burn up in the atmosphere, would be insignificant compared to normal solar radiation bombarding the atmosphere continuously. We're talking about a few grams; not enough to power a city, or a weapon.

A small nuclear reactor isn't nuclear battery - it just requires some minimal mass of fissinable material for keep nuclear reaction is sustainable and STABLE (i.e. safe) regime. And this mass is not "few grams", as everyone, who understands nuclear technology knows quite well. It's always larger, then the mass required for unmoderated nuclear reaction, i.e. nuclear explosion.

In addition, the radiation and toxicity of fissionable material is incomparable to normal solar radiation. Such radiation cannot be swallowed or inhalled and it cannot accumulate in human organism and/or biosphere.

A small nuclear reactor isn't nuclear battery - it just requires some minimal mass of fissinable material for keep nuclear reaction is sustainable and STABLE (i.e. safe) regime. And this mass is not "few grams", as everyone, who understands nuclear technology knows quite well. It's always larger, then the mass required for unmoderated nuclear reaction, i.e. nuclear explosion.

Simple solution. Forced Cerium moderation. Almost impossible to build a functional nuclear weapon regardless of the material content due to contamination. No affect to power output.

In addition, the radiation and toxicity of fissionable material is incomparable to normal solar radiation. Such radiation cannot be swallowed or inhalled and it cannot accumulate in human organism and/or biosphere.

Most people accumulate a lot of solar radiation. And they call it tanning.

If you're referring to the ionizing radiation, that would be rather easily contained.

. Almost impossible to build a functional nuclear weapon regardless of the material content due to contamination

You didn't understood the problem - the risk arises from high number of satellite collisions and spreading of their content into atmosphere. Do you want to experience Chernobyl at the planetary scale?

. Almost impossible to build a functional nuclear weapon regardless of the material content due to contamination

You didn't understood the problem - the risk arises from high number of satellite collisions and spreading of their content into atmosphere. Do you want to experience Chernobyl at the planetary scale?

What are you talking about?