How would we clean up LEO in the event of run away Kessler Syndrome?

[Bill Phil]

What would that achieve? Apart from huge EMP damage to our infrastructure.

Wouldn't the shockwave be heavily reduced?

[RainDreamer]

More shielding is indeed one of the practical choice, but of course that means more mass to shields, which will cut into payload mass and make things more expensive to launch.

Bombs sounds like overkill with a lot of possible unintended consequences. Not to mention danger during transport, possible extra debris generation from such a bomb instead of removing them, and probably get a lot of problems from nations that are under the hydrogen bombs' orbits. We have treaties that prevent the weaponization of space - specifically for weapon of mass destruction - for a reason.

Edited March 23, 2015 by RainDreamer

[Dodgey]

I once saw a proposal for large explosions in the upper atmosphere. This would bulge the atmosphere upwards into the path of the debris decaying their orbit.

[Kibble]

Hey something like that is pretty practical! Like in 1974 when the above-average solar activity made Skylab reenter earlier than expected. I wonder whats the best way to expand out our atmosphere, without waiting for a solar flare.

[RainDreamer]

Wouldn't it be easier to just scoop up some gas in the atmosphere and spray it at things then instead of inducing an atmosphere expansion by ourselves? More precision.

[Kibble]

You don't need (or want) precision - most space junk is tiny, dim, and nearly impossible to see or track.

[RainDreamer]

I mean, at remotely more precision comparing to doing something on that much bigger scale like changing the shape of our atmosphere to catch things. We can still just blanket spraying gas up there to catch those debris instead of like, laser precision.

[PlonioFludrasco]

Make any purpose to a space agency or government, and wait for all the bureaucracy and delays. Since we are talking about LEO, when they are ready for test flight the problem will be solved by itself.

Pardon that provocation, but it's how space stuff runs these days.

[billbobjebkirk]

Hey something like that is pretty practical! Like in 1974 when the above-average solar activity made Skylab reenter earlier than expected. I wonder whats the best way to expand out our atmosphere, without waiting for a solar flare.

Sound's like you're just asking for runaway environmental damage.

[AC656]

Kessler Syndrome solves itself over time. If we follow simple common sense rules and just wait then everything should be fine.

The simple rule to is making sure that the satellites we launch are either taken to a graveyard orbit or made to burn up on reentry after their mission is over. It is farily simple yet it takes some money to use a bit of fuel to make sure the orbit decays. In the end that money might be saved because we won't have to spend it in shielding or on a mission designed just to capture debris.

[RainDreamer]

The thing is, how long can we deal with being unable to launch stuff to space now that we have been accustomed to having satellite assisted communication and observation? It can take decades for the orbits of debris to decay till they enter the atmosphere, and it might take quite long for them all to drop to an acceptable level.

Not that waiting is not an option though, it is a perfectly valid and is probably the default option for this situation. But I am sure there will certain interests that can't be halted and there will be people wanting to solve this problem somehow faster. Here we simply entertain ourselves by thinking what the other ways to solve the problems are. Maybe there are something to be learned.

[AC656]

No I am not saying just sitting and waiting without launching anything.

Right now Kessler syndrome is not so dangerous that we can't keep launching. if we start taking care of our satellites right now (i.e. follow the rule I talked about before) then Kessler syndrome will never become a huge problem.

[smjjames]

I would say bombs. Send them up, collect debris, and ignite the bomb. What kind of bomb you may ask? Hydrogen bombs. Since they have a HUGE explosion radius, and the fact that the US has tons of 'em, I think it would be practical.

Theres the problem of the ban on nuclear testing, and the use of nukes in space. Besides, wouldn't that just add more debris?