<html><head></head><body><div class="ydpb1c85050yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"><div></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Hard to hit them from the optimal angle.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">There is a lot of bending and scattering of the light when near the horizon. <br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">On 10 GHz EME we have seen the optical and radio moon to be as much as 1.5 degrees apart. <br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">This diffraction gives us a beautiful sunsets, but makes it hard to hit a small <br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">target. Best time is of course when the target is directly overhead, but now</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">it is being pushed higher. Certainly make it's orbit more elliptical, but not <br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">sure it would bring it down. Kent</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Plan B Increase your light source 30 or 40 dB and turn it into a plasma.<br></div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="ydpebd42ebbyahoo_quoted_1641923049" class="ydpebd42ebbyahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>
On Thursday, September 24, 2020, 1:08:28 AM CDT, Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div id="ydpebd42ebbyiv3972575999"><div><div>What about deorbiting them with light pressure? Keep them in one piece and give them a little push every day.</div><br clear="none"><div class="ydpebd42ebbyiv3972575999yqt4890361344" id="ydpebd42ebbyiv3972575999yqt39021"><div class="ydpebd42ebbyiv3972575999gmail_quote"><div class="ydpebd42ebbyiv3972575999gmail_attr" dir="ltr">On Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 9:57 PM KENT BRITAIN via Ground-Station <ground-station@lists.openresearch.institute> wrote:<br clear="none"></div><blockquote class="ydpebd42ebbyiv3972575999gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div><div style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"><div></div>
<div dir="ltr">I am pretty sure these LASERS would not leave any small pieces!</div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Well, maybe a few atoms might stick together. Kent<br clear="none"></div><div><br clear="none"></div>
</div><div id="ydpebd42ebbyiv3972575999m_4958884091497643259ydp2d8559a0yahoo_quoted_1196181681">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>
On Wednesday, September 23, 2020, 11:41:14 PM CDT, Phil Karn via Ground-Station <ground-station@lists.openresearch.institute> wrote:
</div>
<div><br clear="none"></div>
<div><br clear="none"></div>
<div><div dir="ltr">On 9/23/20 14:33, Jeff WE4B via Ground-Station wrote:<br clear="none">> I wonder how well the laser ‘pulverized’ these objects in orbit. It’s<br clear="none">> a very interesting solution. Something will have to be done soon to<br clear="none">> mitigate all of the objects that we have inserted into orbit. If I had<br clear="none">> venture capital money, I would partner with Bob McGwier and try to<br clear="none">> figure out a solution. <br clear="none"><br clear="none">I wonder the same thing. Breaking up one big piece of debris into a<br clear="none">whole bunch of smaller pieces of debris that are harder to track only<br clear="none">makes the problem much worse.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">A somewhat more promising use of lasers would be not to break up these<br clear="none">objects but to ablate them strongly enough to provide some delta V to<br clear="none">kick them into lower, shorter-lived orbits. But I'm still skeptical.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">I do have one totally wild idea for clearing out parts of LEO. Lob a<br clear="none">suborbital device into LEO space. When it gets there, it rapidly deploys<br clear="none">a big ball of something like polyurethane foam in the path of a cloud of<br clear="none">orbital debris. The ball does NOT need to actually capture the debris,<br clear="none">it only needs to exchange enough momentum to bring down the debris<br clear="none">particle after it passes through. The ball itself, lacking orbital<br clear="none">momentum, soon falls out of the sky.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">I got this idea while reading about the use of small pieces of aerogel<br clear="none">to capture (admittedly tiny) comet particles moving at relative<br clear="none">velocities of 50 km/s or so, much higher than the ~7 km/s in LEO.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">One problem with this scheme -- and the laser -- is that they look too<br clear="none">much like antisatellite weapons. Which they are. There needs to be a<br clear="none">treaty completely banning intentional creation of long-lived orbital<br clear="none">debris, specifically including antisatellite weapon tests, but with<br clear="none">exceptions for systems designed to remove debris as opposed to creating<br clear="none">it. As long as the debris owners don't object, of course.<div id="ydpebd42ebbyiv3972575999m_4958884091497643259ydp2d8559a0yqtfd47390"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">--Phil<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"></div></div></div>
</div>
</div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>
</div></body></html>