Space Debris Affirmative
Download 394.08 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Using ORION, it only costs $330 to clear a piece of space debris
- Orion Solvency (6/6)
- Orion Solves: NASA already considers it an option, and they’re cheap.
Orion Solvency (5/6)Orion is most cost-effective - Using space-based solutions is impractical compared to a ground-based laser due to the high cost of sending objects to space.Phipps et al. in 96 (PhD at Stanford University in plasma physics, NSS, ORION: Clearing near-Earth space debris using a 20-kW, 530-nm, Earth-based, repetitively pulsed lasers, 1996, http://www.nss.org/resources/library/planetarydefense/1996-ORION-ClearingNearEarthSpaceDebrisUsingPulsedLaser-Phipps.pdf, AX) The approach of Metzger, et al. is space-based, featuring a nuclear-powered spaceborne debris sweeper powering a neutral particle beam or a 10-kJ, 1-Hz krypton fluoride laser (λ = 248 nm). The advantage of this concept is that, in principle, the source can get closer to the debris object than a fixed base system, and that, assuming as we will that the object is spinning, the laser propagation vector can be directed precisely opposite to the momentum of the object for maximum effect. The disadvantages are several. In the first place, mass costs $10 – 20/g to put in low Earth orbit, an added cost that must be well justified compared to the $1/g typical cost of high-tech equipment on Earth. More important than launch cost are the added problems posed by alignment, operation, maintenance and refueling in space. We note that a multi-billion-dollar effort equivalent to placing the Hubble Telescope in orbit is needed to match the quality of optics already installed on Earth which have been augmented by adaptive optics systems. The latter are able to compensate optical distortion due to atmospheric turbulence using, e.g., a sodium “guide-star”, as will be described in Section 10 of this paper. Also, because of the 1000-km depth of the space debris band, an orbiting debris sweeper needs a range of action which turns out to be not dramatically different from that of its ground-based counterpart to be effective in a reasonable time. As regards debris detection, a space-based system discards a “free” advantage of the ground-based system in that, from the ground, interesting objects are all moving against a fixed background, which makes detection simple. In space, velocity discrimination must be used, leading to complicated schemes, e.g., involving 4-wave mixing. For debris mitigation, neutral particle beams were found by Metzger, et al. to require 10 times as much energy as laser beams and significantly greater energy storage. The authors do not list their assumptions about beam divergence, but the fact that they consider a maximum range of 10km is indicative of these assumptions. With a total mass of 6300 kg, the system of Metzger, et al. would cost about $125M just to place on station, a cost about twice what we estimate for the total installed cost of the ground-based system we propose Using ORION, it only costs $330 to clear a piece of space debrisPhipps and Sinko 10 (PhD at Stanford University in plasma physics, Photonic Associates, ORION update, no date, http://photonicassociates.com/ORION_Update.pdf, 2010, AX) Even though a 140kJ/pulse laser operating at 12 pulses per minute might is not yet within the state of the art, we believe it will be soon. The average power is much more reasonable than for the other combinations of parameters. Table 2 indicates a clear advantage for propelling polymer debris targets. The beam director diameter, set by the combination of nonlinear optical effects in the atmosphere and the achievement of the correct target fluence for maximum coupling, is significantly smaller than for the Table 2 case than for the other cases. Addressing only large debris objects was shown not to be the best strategy, based on published debris statistics, and it requires lasers which are even further beyond the state of the art. Using cost estimation methods reported in [3], we can estimate that the small objects can be removed at a cost of $330 each, including supplies and personnel, with system costs amortized over three years. Orion Solvency (6/6)Orion is the best - Laser tech is the best option for asteroid deflection.Phipps 10 (PhD at Stanford University in plasma physics, Photonic Associates, Planetary Defense, 2010, http://photonicassociates.com/ORION_Update.pdf, AX) With adequate planning and a willingness to invest proportional to the potential cost to life on Earth, the laser alternative offers advantages to nuclear explosive deflection. These are the ability to deflect an epoch-ending NEO gradually and safely, the ability to project a calibrated, retargetable defensive capability at the speed of light, and avoidance of nuclear devices in space. Orion Solves: NASA already considers it an option, and they’re cheap.KFC in 11(Published by MIT, NASA Studies Laser for Removing Space Junk, 3-14-9, http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26512/. DT) Today, James Mason at NASA Ames Research Center near Palo Alto and a few buddies describe a much cheaper option. Their idea is to zap individual pieces of junk with a ground-based laser, thereby slowing them down so that they eventually de-orbit. Of course, laser removal isn't entirely new. In the 1990s, the US Air Force studied the idea, thinking that a powerful enough laser could ablate an object, creating a force that could be used to de-orbit it. The trouble with this idea is that such a powerful laser has an obvious dual purpose, which is unlikely to please other space faring nations. So Mason and pals have studied the possibility of using a much less powerful system which uses the momentum of photons alone to decelerate the junk. Focused onto a piece of junk for an hour or two every day, they calculate that a 5 KW laser could do the trick and that such a device could tackle up to ten objects a day. That could help move junk away from potentially dangerous orbits and ultimately to de-orbit it entirely. In fact, Mason and co say that the system could reverse the Kessler syndrome, so that the rate of debris removal once again exceeds its rate of creation. They say their system could even be used for manoeuvring suitably-designed satellites, without the need for them to carry propellant. Such a system could be marketed as a commercial venture, thereby helping to pay for it. Not that it need be terribly expensive. Mason and co estimate that a test device could be knocked up for a million dollars, which would have to be shared by many spacefaring nations, to avoid the inevitable legal issues that using such a device would raise. Of course, the US (and obviously China), already have the technology to this kind of work, using their own antisatellite systems. Indeed, Mason and co say "it may be possible to perform a near-zero cost demonstration using existing capabilities such as those of the Starfire Optical Range at Kirtland AFB." It's only a matter of time before a piece of space junk causes serious havoc in orbit, by threatening a crewed mission, for example. There'll be plenty of interest in this kind of technology after such an incident. And then we'll be asking why we didn't invest in the technology when we had the chance to prevent this kind of disaster. Project ORION solves – since the laser has a high energy per pulse it can remove small parts of the debris material to change the velocity towards the Earth’s atmosphere – free electron lasers fail.Wilder 10 (Benjamin, Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy, B.S., University of South Alabama, Naval Postgraduate School, Thesis for a Master of Science in Physics at the Naval Postgraduate School, Power Beaming, Orbital Debris Removal, And Other Space Applications Of A Ground Based Free Electron Laser, March 2010, http://dodreports.com/pdf/ada518696.pdf, SP) NASA’s Project Orion sought to utilize a high-peak-power, ground-based laser to ablate small portions of the debris material in order to provide a change in velocity, or ∆v, that would lower the altitude of the orbit. As their moniker suggests, high-peak power lasers have a very high energy per pulse, which is sufficient to cause ablation, but their pulses are less frequent than an FEL’s pulses. This single, high-energy pulse is what allows for the ablation of material and subsequent ∆v. If an FEL were utilized for orbital debris removal, it would not have enough peak power to ablate the surface material of the debris. In contrast to other types of laser, an FEL achieves its high average power by generating frequent pulses with comparatively small amounts of energy per pulse. While NASA’s proposed laser for Project Orion generates 150 J per pulse, a 1 MW FEL will only produce about 10 mJ per pulse, but at ~106 times the pulse repetition frequency [53]. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 394.08 Kb. Share with your friends:
|