E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NASA TV
Russian spacecraft stick up from their docking ports on the International Space Station during Saturday's encounter with a piece of space junk. Spacefliers took shelter in their Russian Soyuz lifeboats as a precaution.
The International Space Station's crew members took shelter in their Russian Soyuz lifeboats as a precaution during Saturday's totally harmless passage of a piece of space debris.
In a series of Twitter updates on Friday night, NASA said a hunk of junk from a Russian satellite was projected to fly past the space station at an estimated distance of 14.8 kilometers (9 miles), at around 2:38 a.m. ET Saturday. That was within the zone that required precautionary measures to be taken. The zone is called a "pizza box" because of its shape: 50 kilometers (30 miles) on a side, and 750 meters (a half-mile) above and below the plane of the station.
The appointed time came and went without incident. "Nichevo ... Nothing," one of the Russian cosmonauts said. The spacefliers had hoped to catch a glimpse of the object, but no visual sighting was reported.
NASA said the relatively small piece of debris was a leftover from the 2009 collision involving an Iridium telecommunications satellite and Russia's Cosmos 2251 military communications satellite. It was detected by radar on Friday, sparking the alert.
"Everything went by the book," NASA spokesman Rob Navias said after the all-clear was sounded. He said the station's controllers followed a "precautionary and conservative" approach by ordering the crew to take shelter.
The station currently has six crew members aboard: two Americans (Don Pettit and Dan Burbank), three Russians (Anton Shkaplerov, Anatoly Ivanishin and Oleg Kononenko) and Dutch astronaut Andre Kuipers. The spacefliers were awakened a little more than an hour earlier than scheduled and put the station's control systems into standby mode. Then they took their places in the two Soyuz craft docked to the station and closed the hatches.
The crew members were prepared to descend back down to Earth if the piece of debris had collided with the 450-ton space station and dealt such a serious blow that the orbital outpost had to be abandoned. Instead, they merely reopened the hatches, returned the control systems to their regular settings and resumed a "normal and relaxing weekend," Navias said.
He said it was "serendipitous" that the precautionary measures were taken on the astronauts' day off, meaning that there would be "no impact to scientific research or any other crew work."
Not the first time, or the last
NASA issued a similar collision alert back in November, but called off the alert even before the astronauts' appointed time to get into the Soyuz space capsules. Last June, the crew actually did get into the Soyuz craft due to a collision threat, but the space junk whizzed past at a distance of 850 feet (260 meters). Astronauts took similar precautions in April 2009 and November 2008.
On other occasions, the space station has changed its orbital path slightly to eliminate the risk of collision with space debris. That's how NASA dealt with potential collision threats in January, involving debris from the Iridium satellite as well as from a Chinese satellite that was smashed up in 2007. But in order to use that option, the crew needs more than a day of advance warning.
Experts say there are more than 20,000 pieces of orbiting space junk more than 10 centimeters wide — that is, bigger than a softball. Lots more pieces are smaller, down to the size of a marble. "More than 500,000 pieces of orbital debris are tracked," NASA noted Friday night.
These bits of debris zip around the planet at speeds of 17,500 mph relative to Earth, and could cause serious damage if they were to hit the space station just wrong. NASA and the Defense Department keep close track of the bigger pieces, but the experts are worried that the space-debris problem will only get worse in the years ahead.
All sorts of schemes have been proposed to address the problem, including the idea of shooting water guns or lasers at pieces of space junk, or throwing nets over them. Last month, a Swiss venture announced that they were developing a "janitor satellite" to sweep up the trash. Do you have a better idea? Share it as a comment below.
Update for 11:05 p.m. ET March 23: I originally said the "pizza box" zone was 25 kilometers on each side, but what I meant to say was that it extends 25 kilometers out from the space station on each side. That means the total dimension of the box is 50 by 50 by 1.5 kilometers, with the station in the center, as NASA explains.
Update for 12:55 a.m. ET March 24: When the space station crew was awakened this morning, Mission Control told NASA astronaut Dan Burbank that the debris was projected to come within 9 miles, which is closer than the initial estimate of 14.3 miles. I updated the figures to reflect that, but even the updated estimates had a measure of uncertainty. That's why the spacefliers took shelter.
More about space debris:
- Junk-tracking 'Space Fence' passes key test
- To control space junk, remove 5 pieces a year
- Time running out to salvage doomed satellite
- Europe creating its own space-debris tracker
Last updated at 3 a.m. ET March 24.
Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding Cosmic Log's Google+ page to your circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Idiot! makes as much sense as the sensational news item about a car moving 900 mpg hitting a child with no harm! They're in San Diego, and the earth's rotational speed is 900 mph, more or less. Why not report something usefull, instead of useless sensationalism. Relative speeds in that orbit can range from 0 to 34,000 mph - quite a range, and the motion relative to earths surface quite irrelevant.
Dwell on this for awhile you idiot.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Didn't your mother ever tell you, "if you do not have anything nice to say, then say nothing"? Damn, it's a news article, if you do not like it, move on. It's not that hard. Grow a pair dumbass, just because your life is lame, boring and pathetic, doesnt give you the right to drag others down with you. It's spring now, go for a walk or something.
Alan, I loved the article, and yes, some of this stuff really does move... reminds me of a scene from Pitch Black... Keep up the good work. But I will disagree on one point... We put more and more crap in orbit every day... and every day, we increase the chance that someone will get hurt as a result.
Alan Boyle, you are far from being an idiot. On the contrary, your contributions to us laymen on the subject of astronomy has been appreciated not only by me but countless other folks. The people who refer to you as an idiot obviously don't possess the simple intelligence to come in out of the rain. My hat is off to you sir and thank you.
Cool! It's like watching the signs at McDonald's change the numbers for billions served.
I wouldn't collapse his post Alan ....
So everyone can see who the real idiot is ....
Thanks for the article Alan ....
Moving at 900 miles per gallon eh? You just proved yourself the true idiot.
Ah, it's been a long time since I've been called an idiot ... I was beginning to miss it. This is why I specifically wrote that the 17,500 mph is relative to Earth. But I'm glad that you took the extra step and pointed out that the speed of debris relative to the space station can vary widely. The orbital speed (relative to Earth's surface) is just an oft-quoted figure to show that these things can move really, really fast. I do hope there's useful information in the piece. The most useful thing, I think, is to take away the message that the risk in this case is very, very slight. However, I would be nervous if a hunk of metal was projected to come within a hundred meters or so.
I think it is sad to say that problems here on earth seem to outweigh the problems in space. While I do believe that our only hope as a race was to be able to get off this planet if necessary, I can't help but wonder whether we would do more harm than good in our current state if we were able to migrate.
I think it is a very sad commentary on our society, when we are willing to forgot all we have accomplished for the sake of fiscal security, but that is the nature of the beast.
I also think it is sad but true, that we would continue to do in space what we have done here, and I wonder if the best thing we could do for the Universe, is to stay at home. Perhaps, we should save the universe the trouble and stop believing we could ever rise above and become what we could have been.
The mention of the Swiss venture to send up a janitor bird caught my attention.
A squad of janitors deploying a mesh net that would decelerate items so that gravity could bring an end to their journey.
Then we could start sending the polluters the bill?
Sorry about the negativity, it was a response to the first comment. I don't know how it would react in space, but an eddy current separator would most likely deflect any material headed for the station, based on the idea that most would contain non-ferrous metals. It might even send them towards earth to burn up in the atmosphere.
While I do admit I'm not a rocket scientist I do understand the basics. I am under the impression that the majority of this space junk is orbiting at roughly the same altitude (200 miles) as the station. Our telecomunications sats are 22,400 miles in geosycronous or stationary orbit. Why not just put the station at say 500 miles or farther, is it due to the earths magnetic fields radiation protection, or something thats not commonly mentioned? Shoot it to me straight Doc I can take it. I apoligize in advance for any spelling errors.
I wanted to ask if anybody knows why they can't shoot something at the space debris to change its course. The space station could shoot something identical in the opposite direction and since momentum is conserved it would not affect the orbit of the ISS.
As for what to shoot I was thinking a powder. After colliding with the space junk it would fly in all sorts of directions and in effect not contribute to the amount of dangerous space junk.
Alan,
Why don't you stop using those obsolete units in your articles, in favor of SI. Miles, pounds and inches are so out of place in science writing.
I am on the verge of turning 44 years old. When I was in grade school, (6th grade), we were told that within 10 years, the US would be using the metric system. Well, I am still waiting. I do not care what the rest of the world uses, I know what I am comfortable with, plain and simple. It's simple math; if you need to convert to metric, please do. But the english version of units and measurements works fine for me. Good day to you.
I'd think scientists/engineers could create an apparatus that has a body consisting of a gel like substance, similar to a ballistic gel, to capture the debris. There could be rockets to adjust the position of the satellite to intercept the debris.
@Hangon1minute - One of the reasons for the ISS orbiting at the altitude it does has to do with the fuel economics of the space shuttle to reaching it and have enough fuel for the return trip home without needing so much fuel that it cut into the payload capability. The higher the orbital altitude the more fuel that would be needed to reach it and return. Another reason for the altitude has to do with a trade off between being close to earth to aid in conducting scientific observations of our planet and being higher up so that the station does not orbit so quickly that detailed observations become difficult. The higher the altitude of the space station or a satellite, the slower they orbit the earth, out to a distance of ~22,400 miles where geosynchronous orbits are possible. The lower the altitude, the shorter the orbital period - that is the faster the satellite must move in order to remain in orbit.
The Van Allen Belts really do not come into play for low earth orbit satellites or the space station. The high intensity part of the inner belt is roughly 4,000 to 4,800 miles above the planet and the highest intensity region of the outer belt is roughly 9,000 to 12,000 miles up. Low earth orbit satellites have altitudes of only a few hundred miles putting them well inside the radiation belts and geosynchronous satellites are well outside the the outer belt.
Danger!- Will Robinson!! Danger!!
It would be smart if they create some sort of vacuum-cleaner-space-craft to go around picking trash, then drop it down to Earth in a safe way.
In which case it was a "near hit".
I like the animated pictures of all the space junk in our earths atmosphere in orbit , or maybe I shouldn't ....
But they surely show allot of space junk ....
I'm sorry you have to put up with various types of insults ....
It seems to be a bit of an epidemic ....
Thanks so much for this article Alan Boyle ....
On the SI units, I try to use both, but sometimes I get in a hurry and revert to my caveman foot-pound-gallon ways...
The difficulty in cleaning up orbiting debris is the tremendous volume of space to size of the debris. It would be like us taking a small submarine into the ocean to clean up plastic cups and beer cans. Best case we could grab some of the larger dead satellites so they didn't make it worse.
Not long after the Chinese destroyed the satellite NASA (if I remember correctly) put out an interesting study on the potential outcome for catastrophic cascading orbiting object collisions. We could quickly with just destroying the objects currently in orbit create enough floating garbage that even satellites wouldn't be able to stay in orbit and remain functional. I think the estimate for the majority of the debris to re-enter and clear itself out was several hundred years.
High power laser screen to slow then down and de-orbit.
Semper Vigilans ISS, but of course the scrap that gets you will be the one you don't see coming.
"I wanted to ask if anybody knows why they can't shoot something at the space debris to change its course. The space station could shoot something identical in the opposite direction and since momentum is conserved it would not affect the orbit of the ISS."
BodTown, what usually happens when objects on Earth collide at high speed? Typically a spray of debris going out at various angles. An expanding cloud of debris that continues to be a hazard, in slightly different orbits from the original object, fragments of which are going to be too small to be tracked optically or by radar (as most orbital debris is). Just being in space doesn't give objects unbreakable and perfectly rigid billiard ball-like behavior. More collisions resulting in more debris are what you don't want.
And a hypervelocity 'gun' on the station that had any chance of doing this...also makes a weapon that won't make a lot of people happy (though not being 'a weapon of mass destruction' it violates no treaties) Plus, a projectile weapon mounted on the station will have an effect (albeit not a dangerous one) on the station's orbit. There will still be recoil, Newton's Third Law still works. Whether or not that projectile hits an object later, is irrelevant...
romilo: "It would be smart if they create some sort of vacuum-cleaner-space-craft to go around picking trash, then drop it down to Earth in a safe way."
Vacuum cleaner...in vacuum? Even if possible, you'd have to very nearly match velocities and rendezvous with it first, anyway, in which case you just reach out and physically grab it Otherwise it would be like trying to use a vacuum cleaner on Earth to suck up a bullet passing close to you...
The same would apply to using magnets, BTW. And even that would assume the object had enough ferrous metal in its structure to matter.
Good to see that humans continue our legacy of leaving trash everywhere we go. If it is any consolation, Alan, we're all idiots.
Stars have left their trash - literally - everywhere. We're suppose to be better than the creators of all matter?
"If it is any consolation, Alan, we're all idiots."
Troy and Alan,
I see that comment as a positive sign. If we ever get to the point where we see ourselves as the problem, then we can move on to better things......with a lot less problems.
>Alan... You're one of the least sensationalistic writers on MSNBC and one of the few I truly enjoy reading. You also read the comment posts and reply to answer questions, which is awesome. Kudos
I've learned from commenting here and from articles I've written for other publications that you can't always include every detail about everything. Some people just love to correct or split hairs and certain ones with insults.
Keep up the good work.
Dr. M.P.
...three Russians (Anton Shkaplerov, Anatoly Ivanishin)...Guess the third guy was hit by the debris.
;)
Yeah, I missed that in the shuffling back and forth. Sorry about that.
Isn't a near miss a hit? I mean, when you nearly miss something wouldn't that indicate that you hit it? A near hit would be a miss.
LOL No wonder most authors don't participate.
The colloquialism is near miss, whether it makes literal sense or not. Many colloquialisms do not make literal sense. If Alan had written near hit, it would have stopped most readers in their tracks as they tried to clarify what he meant.
I love these kinds of articles. There are plenty of stories for you atrocity-junkies to get your daily fix. There is zero possibility that the news will fail to provide you with justification for your perpetual angst and indignation. Let those of us who think it's awesome that we have something like the International Space Station enjoy ourselves once in awhile.
"nearly missed" would be "almost missed" which means "hit". "near miss" means "missed quite near".
I find it all quite fascinating (including the orbital speed relative to the Earth's surface) and appreciate the little details in your article that gives someone like me (with very little scientific background) a basis for comparison. Thanks Alan.
Good article. It's truly a shame that even in the vastness of space, we have generated pollution that is harmful to human life.
How long does it take for the small (but still dangerous) particles to drop out of orbit?
first column I read nightly (when possible). If it ain't on the cos log then maybe I can check out the register...between the two the rest are all hash. The main draw seems to be the real links for more info...kudus, again.
It would be nice if they (crew) could boldly stand out on the observation deck, phasors in glove, ready to watch the stations still fictional phasor banks lock target automatically and blast away at ye good ole relative fast moving object/junk....just before the the station out gasses some ionized gas to be used by the ships electromagnetic grid to deploy a low temp protective plasma around the station...ya that would be nice, they could get started by using the shuttle to take it a bunch more solar panels needed for allthat energy...wait, some idiot expired the shuttle, then another watched it happen....hmmm....ok, graphene film ultra capacitor electro streamer powered nets it is then. That'll make some good vid, station crew takes space walk to watch robonaut cast net at various junk/rare metals. next best thing to a good blaster I guess.....every ship oughta have a couple carbon space nets just off port side, cause you never know.
Hats off to the janitorial satellite, with a good plan, the situation may well be in check at least when commercial space tourism hits third gear....
One thing is clear, this is the small station, when we get around to building the moderate (not the big station, not yet) we really do have to come up with a better system than duck and cover. Either we capture an asteroid and tunnel into it and call it out post one or we develop some sort of energy barrier. Hide and seek ain't gonna cut it. now, back to planning that new, bigger better zastra of a station....get back to work politicians, we gotta new mandate for ya's....first you might have to take a pay cut, second...
Good, so you send up a trawler with a net running at 16,999 mph and troll. Other wise light up the laser and shoot them down. Either way secrets are going to be given up... is is a bad thing? Who knows?
Is there a way to build a highly magnetized orbiting platform to attract small space junk? Would static charge work?
Could you use magetism to slow particles enough to decay their orbits?
There is 22,000 Tracked objects, I don't give a litteral @!$%# if it's important or not. We've dirtied or space so lets clean it up!
We can construct a really long vacuum extension out of nanotubes and connect it to my Dyson.
It seems that the Soyuz "lifeboats" are just as likely to be hit by the debris as any other part of the station. And since they're squeezed in there it would take all 3 of them out at once. It seems a better strategy might be to spread everyone out over the entire structure and then play musical chairs after an impact, I'm guessing that NASA may have analyzed this more than I just did.
It's true that an impact on the Soyuz orbital compartment would be very bad news, but if one or more of the ISS modules are seriously damaged, you want to be able to evacuate quickly.
The worst case would be to be in a location where a module between you and a Soyuz had to be sealed off, and you'd be trapped.
Whoever made that big mess should go up there and clean it up right now!
The garbage crisis as seen by world leaders, environmentalists, and concerned citizens is a growing problem that must be reckoned with. It has been called "the crisis of the 90's." Magazines devote columns of space to warning of this global plight. "Buried Alive," headlined the cover page of Newsweek magazine. "The Garbage Glut: An Environmental Crisis Reaches Our Doorstep," the magazine announced. "Tons and tons of trash and no place to put it" was the title of U.S.News & World Report's article on garbage. "Garbage, Garbage, Everywhere. Landfills are overflowing, but alternatives are few," Time magazine heralded in bold type. "West's Garbage—A Growing Burden for Third World," headlined the Paris International Herald Tribune.
If You Were the Landlord, and These Were Your Tenants . . .
ON A cliff overlooking the ocean, you've built a beautiful house on 20 acres of gently rolling woodland. The inside of the house has been flawlessly decorated by a talented artist. Outside, near the house, landscaped flower beds give dazzling color, as also do the window boxes on the house itself. Fruit orchards and vegetable gardens provide ample food.
Beyond these cultivated areas, towering trees surround a meadow through which a brook gurgles and winds its way. Sea breezes sway the wild flowers that add splashes of color to sunny glades. Everywhere you look is a feast for the eyes, and for your nostrils as they draw in deep breaths of sea air scented by flowers, and for your ears as birds fill the air with song and the wind adds its rustling of leaves. And in the background you hear the subdued sounds of the ocean surf as it rolls in on the beach far below.
You survey the results of your work and feel satisfaction, a sense of accomplishment. You want others to enjoy it. You bring in a large family and turn all of it over to them, along with instructions for its care. You leave.
Later you return, and you're shocked! The ocean is a yellowish brown, globs of oil and garbage litter the beach, the trees have been chopped down, the meadow has turned brown, the brook is a mere trickle and it's polluted. Trash is everywhere. The birds have left, the flowers are gone, the fruit trees are dead and concrete covers where the garden was.
The paint has peeled off the house. Inside the house the floors are filthy, the walls marked up, the furniture scratched. The kitchen is littered with leftover food and the sink is filled with dirty dishes. Blaring music comes from some rooms, cursing is heard in others, and in some gross sexual immoralities and perversions are being practiced. The family left in charge has greatly increased, and its members quarrel and fight and even kill one another.
As you survey the damage to your house and its grounds, and note the moral decay of its inhabitants, what thoughts go through your mind? This was the work of your hands. You're the landlord. These people are your tenants. Obviously, they don't appreciate what you did for them. They have ignored your instructions as to the care of your property. Will you leave them there? What will you do?
Similarly, "to Jehovah belong the earth and that which fills it." (Ps. 24:1) After he created it he "saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good." (Gen. 1:31) He put people on the earth and told them to take care of it—the plants, the animals, the environment. Now, after 6,000 years, what does he see? How does he feel about what he sees? What will he do?
Well, since our fleet of shuttles have been scrubbed and we now have to 'thumb' rides from Russia (at 55 million a seat)...
Our astronauts are up a creek without a celestial paddle in the case of a disaster.
Way to go, Washington.
JFK is spinning in his grave so fast that the eternal flame keeps getting blown out.
You speak as if Shuttles could either collect orbital debris, or be maintained on standby, ready to 'scramble,' like strategic bombers. Neither is true.
This is why we need Commercial Crew. There would be a much greater probability that a launch would be nearly ready for another purpose and commandeered for a rescue mission.
lest, the $55 million is a lot cheaper than maintaining and flying the shuttle, which never even came close to achieving the original cost/pound into orbit goals.
Further, there isn't that much for humans to do in space, so even $55 million isn't cheap. The ISS is a spacecraft in search of a mission. Regards....
SUGGESTION for space trash: (the caps WERE to distinguish this from the dreck of personal nonsense above.)
why not magnetically charge all space bound objects so that they repelled each other???
how about having them fall on Iran at about the same time.
@molly cruz.. good idea, using electrostatic forces they could repell, but the forces necessary would probably not be practical and would likely be disruptive.. unfortunatey, magnetic forces are always bipolar so there is always mutual attraction, like two small bar magnets.. the pieces would clump together.. good thinking though.. ***
I wanted to ask if anybody knows why they can't shoot something at the space debris to change its course. The space station could shoot something identical in the opposite direction and since momentum is conserved it would not affect the orbit of the ISS.
As for what to shoot I was thinking a powder. After colliding with the space junk it would fly in all sorts of directions and in effect not contribute to the amount of dangerous space junk.
That makes sense.
If a powder is shot in space at the speed required for orbit and in vacuum, would it still turn into a "powderpuff"? The way I imagine it is that it would stay as a single piece, since all particles are flying in the same direction at the same velocity. And the only time it would become a powderpuff is after it is disturbed by a collision.
Any corrections and feedback is much appreciated.
"why not magnetically charge all space bound objects so that they repelled each other???"
Perhaps because it's not possible to 'magnetically charge' something?
You meant electrostatic charge? This is not about subatomic particles, but macroscopic objects that aren't going to respond to the charge (or electromagnetic fields) of other objects until just prior to impact, too late to deflect them enough...
We could use "Duck Dodgers" space vacuum. Oh wait, that's not until the 24th and a half century.
wait till china gets it space program going full speed. then we will have rusting, poison lead paint, possibly contaminated with nuclear waste debris. Then we have North Korea, they will be trying to shoot everyone elses chit down. Then that little mad man in Iran he will be trying to shoot down anything that any one Jewish ever might have touched.
what a world.
Could explain why Shatner doesn't like to fly...
Nasa is working on the once Sci Fi technology tractor beam. If they can get the tractor beam to work hopefully whithin a decade or so, why not use it to help pull in space junk or debris from Earth's orbit.
Let's hope the beam won't get hit with the junk. Even a smallest piece will break it.
They need the Space Roomba!
With scrap prices fluctuating today,you'd think somebody would snag some of this dead weight and drag it back down to earth!
Scrap prices will never get so high that it'll pay to hunt down many thousands of small objects in various orbital altitudes and speeds. Raising one fair-sized ship from the sea would make more sense. More accessible, lots of mass all in one place.
There's a certain cruise ship you could probably have that isn't even fully sunk, and many times the total mass of everything ever launched into space...
Orbital debris is like icebergs. Hazards to navigation. You don't track them because you want the ice.
yes, how about a multi-layer, impact absorbing "net" .. like a bullet proof vest structure, kevlar or nylon or whatever, layered with soft material
Just issue rvery individual sent to station a bag and one of those litter grabby thingies and tell them they cant come home until bag is full. Maybe line them up like in the militery and tell them "if it doesnt grow pick it up". Deosnt take a rocket scientist to figure out a trash problem (sheesh).
I wanted to ask if anybody knows why they can't shoot something at the space debris to change its course. The space station could shoot something identical in the opposite direction and since momentum is conserved it would not affect the orbit of the ISS.
As for what to shoot I was thinking a powder. After colliding with the space junk it would fly in all sorts of directions and in effect not contribute to the amount of dangerous space junk.
Hey Bodtown, doesn't it tell you something about the validity of your idea that no one has answered you despite you posting the question multiple times?
Consider hitting something the size (or smaller) than a softball that is travelling at thousands of miles (or KM's) per hour. They still have trouble hitting telephone pole sized missiles here on earth.
Since there are (according to this article) 500,000 tracked objects, how are they supposed to create an identical sized projectile to the piece of debris?
How would a powder deflect an object? Next time a mugger shoots at you, throw talc at him and see what effect that has.
Well I'm trying to learn more about why it couldn't work. Is it wrong for me to ask questions and try to learn? I'm only in high school.
The way I see it is that in a vacuum without gravity, if you should a powder of say 500Kg mass at the speed required for orbit, it will all continue to shoot in the same direction, not splitting into "dust" as throwing talc at a mugger on earth would do. Once this "block of dust" then hits the projecting, it will transfer the momentum and change the path of the object, even if only the slightest bit. Since both object are flying, if hit from a distance it only needs to change direction the slightest bit to avoid a collision.
And since it's a powder you can create any size of projectile, as long as you have enough powder.
It seems that the big issue then is precision for hitting it, as well as calculating in what way it should be hit to avoid a collision with reasonable certainty.
I would appreciate any constructive feedback. Cheers!
Oh and Craneguy, you laughed at my powder idea, but if there is a mugger and I had a fire extinguisher, yea I'd shoot powder at him and I think it would be fairly affective. If I had a hypothetical giant fire extinguisher with a lot of powder I could spray enough to make him fall down. Of course I would also fall down in the opposite direction. That is why I would need another fire extinguisher to spray against a stationary wall on the opposite side.
Lets face the facts. It will never get cleaned up. It's a pipe dream, not cost effective or reasonable to think we can "catch" most of this junk flying around. A Swiss flying space dumpster. LMAO!