Clear Space Technologies: Recycling & Repurposing Orbital Space Debris

[fr1t2]

Lets try this again. Hello, my name is Fritz Conklin. I recently started a company, Clear Space Technologies. We intend to recycle and repurpose debris instead of the standard solution of "lets destroy it". This poses several hurdles, but nothing we can't overcome. Our mission is to defray the costs of future projects, i.e. lunar habitats or perhaps a lunar orbiting station etc. utilizing the harvested debris. Let's not forget the estimated value of some of this "junk". Obsolete, maybe but valuable none the less. So what do you think? Any and all input accepted.

 

[Drakkith]

Have you done a cost analysis or something for all of this yet? Do you have a plan for cheaply getting a vehicle into orbit and then harvesting this debris?

 

[fr1t2]

We are doing some cost analysis now. It seems the entire infrastructure exists, and initial costs seem high, but getting space faring nations to aid in the cleanup of their respective messes should be the way to go. The vehicles on the other hand, with funding are within a 5 year window, as all are unmanned and somewhat autonomous. Launch vehicles are available, but because of the specialized purpose of the harvester, they will end up being one and the same. Several designs sit on my desk as we "speak" Design specs etc. are at this time proprietary but should be available for dissemination mid 2016. This is why we post. I thank you so much for your interest. We await your next query.

 

[Drakkith]

Okay. Now, may I ask how you're planning to re-purpose this debris? Much of it seems to be completely unusable other than as scrap. Also, you'll have to get it back to Earth without it burning up or disintegrating. How are you planning to do so?

 

[Evo]

Are you aware of the DARPA Phoenix program?

Seems DARPA already has a commercial partner and they have changed their original plan to be one of military and commercial repair of broken satellites.

http://www.novawurks.com/applications/darpa-phoenix/

They already scraped the original plan. "DARPA continues program to reuse parts from orbiting dead satellites"

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/print/volume-24/issue-02/news/news/darpa-continues-program-to-reuse-parts-from-orbiting-dead-satell.html

 

[fr1t2]

As far as the repurposing, we believe that some of the structures in orbit could be retrofitted as the basic beginnings of lunar habitat. After a soft crash landing on the lunar surface. The recycling begins with a reusable, shielded reentry vehicle, basically a hollow tube, splash down and barge recovery.

Please, enlighten me.

Funny you should bring up Darpa. My son had me get the codec chirp from metal gear solid as my mail chime.

 

[D H]

Hello, my name is Fritz Conklin. I recently started a company, Clear Space Technologies. We intend to recycle and repurpose debris instead of the standard solution of "lets destroy it". This poses several hurdles, but nothing we can't overcome.

Welcome to PhysicsForums, Fritz.

I google search for "Fritz Conklin"; no luck. That means you're not an extremely rich person who is willing to risk it all on joining the NewSpace crowd. You will need investors. Big investors. I google searched for "Clear Space Technologies". No luck. Do you have a website? That's one of the first things big investors look for from a high tech 21st century company. They also look for a viable business plan.

Our mission is to defray the costs of future projects, i.e. lunar habitats or perhaps a lunar orbiting station etc. utilizing the harvested debris. Let's not forget the estimated value of some of this "junk". Obsolete, maybe but valuable none the less. So what do you think? Any and all input accepted.

That seems overambitious on first glance. Have you identified your customers? Have you done some kind of analysis regarding what they're willing to pay? Have you estimated your costs, your timeline? Have you looked at your competition (you have serious competition). Do you have a team, or a plan for forming a team? You'll need lots of expertise. You will not be able to do this by yourself.

In short, have you made a business case? You'll need one (a very good one) because you will need major investors. Getting stuff into space is expensive. Designing and building stuff that goes into space is even more expensive.

There have been a number of very well funded and less ambitious satellite recovery projects that have been shelved: MDA's Space Infrastructure Servicing, Orbital Recovery Corporation's ConeXpress. A new startup, ViviSat (http://www.vivisat.com) appears to be very well funded and considerably less ambitious than those that have folded.

 

[fr1t2]

Believe me, I don't profess to know all aspects of the project, but I have surrounded myself with people who do.

 

[Drakkith]

I'm afraid that we may not be able to help you very much, as there probably isn't anyone here on PF that's an expert in this area. If you've already surrounded yourself by people who are experts, why did you come to PF? Or am I misunderstanding the purpose of this thread?

 

[fr1t2]

Our website should be up and running soon. No I am not rich, except in mind. You bring up numerous valid points, most of which, well some of which, we have heard and are, or intend to address. It is ambitious, but we have to be, to achieve.

I was just looking for exactly what you gave me. It will be a daunting task, with many pitfalls. We believe we are up to it. The money will come as always. Our client base is yet to be established, but we are working on it. Thank you so very much for your time. Plenty to cogitate. I will post again when our website is up. Sorry if I wasted your time, and I'm sure all there would be of great help.

It's the refreshing honesty I guess I was looking for. Someone NOT on the payroll. No smoke. If you catch my drift.

 

[D H]

Do you have enough money to go to Jerusalem in October? You need to establish your bonafides, and a conference is a good place to do that. The 66th International Astronautical Congress (IAC) will have a number of sessions dedicated to orbital debris removal / repurposing.

 

[SteamKing]

As far as the repurposing, we believe that some of the structures in orbit could be retrofitted as the basic beginnings of lunar habitat. After a soft crash landing on the lunar surface. The recycling begins with a reusable, shielded reentry vehicle, basically a hollow tube, splash down and barge recovery.

Exactly which "structures" are you talking about, which could be recycled into a lunar habitat?

If you are planning on bringing this stuff back to Earth to refurbish it, you'll have to pay to get it back into orbit, let alone to the moon.

 

[fr1t2]

Now see, that's what I need. Thank you. I will try. Or should one of my tech. guys go?

 

[fr1t2]

It was proposed that upper stage structures could be retrofitted as habitat. Of course this is a future phase. The recycling would be first, in an effort to finance the latter.

 

[Evo]

It was proposed that upper stage structures could be retrofitted as habitat. Of course this is a future phase. The recycling would be first, in an effort to finance the latter.

Since DARPA has a commercial partner to repair and repurpose these dead satellites already. Just what satellites do you think you're going to buy? What due diligence have you done?

Also, please learn to use the quote function and how to multi-quote, your responses seem to be to no one in particular.

 

[fr1t2]

We aren't going to BUY anything. The idea is to get paid to remove these hinderences to navigation.

 

[Drakkith]

Also, please learn to use the quote function and how to multi-quote, your responses seem to be to no one in particular.

To explain, you can hit the 'Reply' button at the bottom of any post to copy that post into the text box below and reply to it. The '+Quote' button will add that post to a quote que, and once you're done adding posts to the quote que you can click the 'Insert Quotes' button to add those posts to the reply text box. In addition, you can highly specific text within any post and a small popup will appear allowing you to reply to or quote that text.

 

[fr1t2]

And if THIS is DARPA's responsibility,--- well frankly, they are "sucking" at it (to use the vernacular)

Sorry, I assumed they were going where needed. I do see how it could be confusing to a newcomer to the thread.

 

[Evo]

We aren't going to BUY anything. The idea is to get paid to remove these hinderences to navigation.

And your existing competition?

 

[fr1t2]

And your existing competition?

There are a few. Mostly using tethers to add resistance and degrade the orbit to eventual destruction, but that's what we want to avoid.

 

[Evo]

There are a few. Mostly using tethers to add resistance and degrade the orbit to eventual destruction, but that's what we want to avoid.

Really?

Gobbling Up Space Debris: A Pac-Man Approach Proposed
by Leonard David, Space.com's Space Insider Columnist | July 28, 2015

http://www.space.com/30007-space-junk-cleanup-pac-man-approach.html

 

[fr1t2]

I do appreciate you all being so brutal, it keeps me focused. Remember it is a work in progress.

 

[D H]

As far as the repurposing, we believe that some of the structures in orbit could be retrofitted as the basic beginnings of lunar habitat. After a soft crash landing on the lunar surface. The recycling begins with a reusable, shielded reentry vehicle, basically a hollow tube, splash down and barge recovery.

You are going to recover something (what?) currently in orbit by
(a) launching a recovery vehicle,
(b) rendezvousing with the target (which is most likely dead, so a non-cooperative target),
(c) encapsulating it in your reentry vehicle,
(d) performing a reentry and splash down,
(e) recovering and refurbishing,
(f) relaunching and transferring to a lunar orbit,
(g) landing on the Moon with a "soft" crash landing,
(h) repurposing on the Moon, and
(i) making a profit?

Steps (a), (e), and (f) are very expensive. I think it might be cheaper to simply build the right structure on the ground from scratch. Steps (b) and (c) are technically very challenging. Rendezvous with a non-cooperative target is a hard problem. Step (g) -- how are you going to do that? A crash landing? How hard? Why not a controlled landing?

Step (h) is the hardest of all. What is the financial value of a lunar habitat to anything but a nation state? Why would a nation state come to you rather than doing it themselves?

Finally, have you considered space law (and maritime law, by precedence)? Much of that orbital debris is not free for the taking. Consider the case of https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/221/221.F3d.634.-98-281-2.99-2036.99-2035.html and the corresponding countersuit by the Kingdom of Spain.

This in rem admiralty action concerns the sovereign rights of the Kingdom of Spain to two of its Royal Naval vessels, LA GALGA and JUNO, which were lost off the shores of present-day Virginia in 1750 and 1802 respectively.

The offshoot of that case was that a ship lost over 200 years ago is not "lost" or "abandoned" if the ship was the property of or operated on behalf of a nation state. By extension, the space debris that was launched by or on behalf of a nation state is not an abandoned spacecraft . Nation states don't abandon things.

 

[fr1t2]

A thru d are correct, but the "junk" upper stages wouldn't come back to earth, but be stored on the lunar surface for refitting at a later date. Hopefully to expedite some sort of human presence on the moon. As far as the law, we would touch nothing we weren't contracted to, with the disclosure that upon retrieval said property becomes that of Clear Space.

 

[fr1t2]

Sorry again for the confusion. I didn't realize I was talking to 3 different people.

 

[D H]

Aside: When responding to a post by someone else, it's a good idea to use the "Reply" button at the bottom of that post to quote that post. You can edit what you're quoting to remove irrelevant bits (but don't put words in the other person's writing). This does three things: It gives your response context, it provides a link to the full post you are quoting, and it notifies the person who wrote that post that someone responded to it.

A thru d are correct, but the "junk" upper stages wouldn't come back to earth, but be stored on the lunar surface for refitting at a later date.

It appears you're launching a recovery vehicle equipped with an inertial upper stage, rendezvousing with the target vehicle, and transferring the IUS to the target. The recovery vehicle then departs from the IUS+target vehicle returns to Earth for reuse, while the IUS+target goes to the Moon. That makes a bit more sense. Technically, it's still hard. Rendezvousing with a non-cooperative target is not easy (and that's putting it mildly). The transfer will require some sophisticated equipment.

I'm not at all sure it makes sense economically. The reason the USA sent (and the Soviet Union tried hard to send) people to the Moon was not economical. It was national pride, soft warfare, and technical advancement. Officially, the reason was "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." Unofficially, it was because anything not quite so hard would either have been a "yawn" or would likely have resulted in the Soviet Union beating the USA to the punch. President Kennedy very much wanted a striking victory over the Soviet Union without quite having to go to war with them.

You aren't a nation state, and neither are your investors. They want to make money. So what is the business case that makes you attractive to investors?You haven't said why you want to do a "soft" crash landing on the Moon. How soft? Orbital speed at the Moon's surface is 1.68 km/second. That is not a soft crash landing. That's twice the speed of a 50 caliper bullet. You'll need to do some braking. Why not a soft, non-crash landing?

 

[fr1t2]

Aside: When responding to a post by someone else, it's a good idea to use the "Reply" button at the bottom of that post to quote that post. You can edit what you're quoting to remove irrelevant bits (but don't put words in the other person's writing). This does three things: It gives your response context, it provides a link to the full post you are quoting, and it notifies the person who wrote that post that someone responded to it.
It appears you're launching a recovery vehicle equipped with an inertial upper stage, rendezvousing with the target vehicle, and transferring the IUS to the target. The recovery vehicle then departs from the IUS+target vehicle returns to Earth for reuse, while the IUS+target goes to the Moon. That makes a bit more sense. Technically, it's still hard. Rendezvousing with a non-cooperative target is not easy (and that's putting it mildly). The transfer will require some sophisticated equipment.

I'm not at all sure it makes sense economically. The reason the USA sent (and the Soviet Union tried hard to send) people to the Moon was not economical. It was national pride, soft warfare, and technical advancement. Officially, the reason was "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." Unofficially, it was because anything not quite so hard would either have been a "yawn" or would likely have resulted in the Soviet Union beating the USA to the punch. President Kennedy very much wanted a striking victory over the Soviet Union without quite having to go to war with them.

You aren't a nation state, and neither are your investors. They want to make money. So what is the business case that makes you attractive to investors?You haven't said why you want to do a "soft" crash landing on the Moon. How soft? Orbital speed at the Moon's surface is 1.68 km/second. That is not a soft crash landing. That's twice the speed of a 50 caliper bullet. You'll need to do some braking. Why not a soft, non-crash landing?

We think that gently dropping the payload just prior to landing would be more cost effective, in that the decent vehicle would get a bit of a slingshot back into lunar orbit to await it's next mission, and the payload would remain relatively unharmed.
This is a long term project which we think would benefit mankind as a whole.
The nation states ARE the investors, as well as the clients. Spreading the cost over a wider base so no one bears the cost alone.
This may be the hardest part. Getting them all to think globally without prejudice for their fellow space farers. It sounds like you're beginning to see some of it though.

We see the moon as the launch pad to the stars. Romantic, but true. Most things would be easier in lunar orbit.i.e. construction, launching, etc.

 

[fr1t2]

We think that gently dropping the payload just prior to landing would be more cost effective, in that the decent vehicle would get a bit of a slingshot back into lunar orbit to await it's next mission, and the payload would remain relatively unharmed.
This is a long term project which we think would benefit mankind as a whole.
The nation states ARE the investors, as well as the clients. Spreading the cost over a wider base so no one bears the cost alone.
This may be the hardest part. Getting them all to think globally without prejudice for their fellow space farers. It sounds like you're beginning to see some of it though.

We see the moon as the launch pad to the stars. Romantic, but true. Most things would be easier in lunar orbit.i.e. construction, launching, etc.

Boiled down, a multi nationally funded, privately owned, space debris retrieval and recycling corporation.

 

[Chronos]

Salvaging space junk is basically a pipe dream. Collection is no trivial matter, this stuff is whizing around the Earth at over 17,000 mph in just about every direction. The launch cost of this debris is many thousands of dollars per kg. It is there any reason to believe the recovey cost will be less? The salvage value of space junk is absolutely trivial in comparison to launch and recovery costs. For brief discussion see http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2013/Hyatt_Corey/WhatBeingDone.html.

 

[fr1t2]

Salvaging space junk is basically a pipe dream. Collection is no trivial matter, this stuff is whizing around the Earth at over 17,000 mph in just about every direction. The launch cost of this debris is many thousands of dollars per kg. It is there any reason to believe the recovey cost will be less? The salvage value of space junk is absolutely trivial in comparison to launch and recovery costs. For brief discussion see http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2013/Hyatt_Corey/WhatBeingDone.html.

Don't really expect to make money on the salvage. Expect to make it on the contracts to remove the debris from valuable orbital space.

 

[D H]

We think that gently dropping the payload just prior to landing would be more cost effective, in that the decent vehicle would get a bit of a slingshot back into lunar orbit to await it's next mission, and the payload would remain relatively unharmed.

What slingshot? Certainly not the Oberth effect. You have to kill almost all of your velocity to make that landing soft, and that kills the Oberth effect. Certainly not a gravity slingshot, either. The same applies to gravity slingshots.

Regarding the payload remaining relatively unharmed, cut both the bottom and top off of a steel food can. If you stand the can upright, you can stand on it. That's the strength of columns at work. If you lay the can sideways, it doesn't take much weight at all to crush it. That's the weakness of open-ended cylinders to radial stresses at work. I'm assuming that that is essentially your payload. Those spent second/third stages in low Earth orbit were subject to strong axial stresses, some hoop stress, but very little radial stress. The strength of columns plays very nicely with these kinds of stresses. Unless you kill almost all of the horizontal velocity, you soft landing will most likely result in a crushed payload.

The nation states ARE the investors, as well as the clients. Spreading the cost over a wider base so no one bears the cost alone.

Now you're getting into politics.

I think you need to rethink your idea.

The key players, the US and Russia, they won't want to play with you. They've both seen too many companies with grandiose ideas start and fail. They do occasionally fund them, but in small dribs and drabs. You need massive amounts of funding for your dream to take hold. Massive amounts of funding typically go to NASA's or Roscosmos' overly expensive large aerospace contractors. The American and Russian politicians who fund those space agencies very much like this arrangement. ESA -- they won't want to play with you, either. They prefer to use their overly expensive large European aerospace contractors. The EU politicians who fund ESA like this kind of arrangement just as much as do their American and Russian counterparts. The two up-and-coming nations in space exploration, China and India, both have huge amounts of national pride. Unless you're from China or India, they won't want to play with you, either. (Also keep in mind that the Chinese invented bureaucracy thousands of years ago.) That doesn't leave you with much.

This may be the hardest part. Getting them all to think globally without prejudice for their fellow space farers.

I am getting the idea that you are young dreamers who don't know much about business, politics, engineering, and maybe not even orbital mechanics. It's good to be a dreamer when you're young. But you need to channel that against reality. You need huge amounts of backing for what you propose.

If you really want to do something like this, think along the lines of Elon Musk. Make a small fortune somewhere (not space). Then turn that small fortune into a huge fortune somewhere else (again, not space). You won't need that huge fortune for your personal needs; a medium-sized one will suffice just fine. You can turn that huge fortune into a medium-sized one by starting your own NewSpace startup. Maybe, just maybe, you'll turn that medium-sized fortune you have left into a gargantuan one.

Learn about business and politics along the way; Musk certainly did. His business acumen has resulted in teams of fantastically qualified people at SpaceX, Tesla Motors, and SolarCity. He plays politicians as if they are finely-tuned instruments and he is the conductor. (Note well: I am not deriding Musk. Not at all. He is extremely savvy, extremely forward-looking, and extremely smart.)