back to article Airbus to test sat-stabilizing 'Detumbler' to simplify astro-garbage disposal

Airbus has developed a completely mechanical solution to help make space junk easier to capture – using magnets, the Earth's magnetic field and a bit of friction. Dubbed the Detumbler, the device was developed in 2021 by Airbus alongside the French Space Agency (CNES). One of the minuscule 100-gram devices launched into orbit …

  1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    We're talking about space junk, right ?

    "It's unclear whether a Detumbler could simply be slapped onto an existing satellite "

    If we're talking about space junk, I would hope that this Detumbler is supposed to fix on existing junk. A satellite that is still functional has attitude control, and thus doesn't need a Detumbler.

    That said, Airbus hasn't said how it is supposed to get the Detumbler on the cubesat for the test, but I hope that said Detumbler will launch after the cubesat, to catch up with it somehow and latch on magnetically. If it can indeed orient itself, lock on target and basically dock, then it would be a massive success and we could start thinking about sending scores of Detumblers to help bring the junk down.

    Of course, that sounds too good to be true, so . . .

    1. Paul Kinsler

      Re: still functional ...thus doesn't need a Detumbler.

      But I suppose if you were going to worry about when a satellite might become non-functional in the future (whether by accident or end-of-life), then having a detumbler already installed might be sensible. But perhaps a detumbler might have unwanted side-effects..?

    2. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: We're talking about space junk, right ?

      I would think that if it had a pointy part with 'legs' on it like a molly screw, it could be fired at a rogue tumbling satellite, the pointy thing would penetrate and stay attached, and the entire operation would help to (eventually) de-orbit the thing.

      Yeah, it would be like a "Space Ballista" if you think about it.

      1. theOtherJT Silver badge

        Re: We're talking about space junk, right ?

        Oooh... Spider mines!

    3. jmch Silver badge

      Re: We're talking about space junk, right ?

      "If we're talking about space junk, I would hope that this Detumbler is supposed to fix on existing junk. A satellite that is still functional has attitude control, and thus doesn't need a Detumbler."

      A satellite that is still functional only has attitude control as long as it is still functional, so better have a detumbler built in on all satellites if it works as advertised. Besides, if you could do a degree of attitude control using only the earth's magnetic field as impulse rather than expensive thruster fuel, that could significantly increase a satellite's useful life.

      Furthermore, I would think it is far more difficult to attach one to existing space junk, one would have to match trajectory to start with, and then find the appropriate place to stick this on to a spinning object, and actually sticking it on (is it welded? could it stick on magnetically without losing the properties that make it work? does it need to be stuck on in a very specific place?). It would take quite a high level of skill, effort and cost to do that (meaning for a vast majority of existing space debris would not be feasible)

  2. tony72

    It's unclear whether a Detumbler could simply be slapped onto an existing satellite, or whether it would have to be part of one at launch

    It would cost about as much to launch a mission to attach a Detumbler to an existing satellite, as it would to launch a space tug to just deorbit that satellite directly. Since the satellite fitted with a Detumbler would still need a subsequent mission to deorbit it, and the Detumbler would have to be fitted before the satellite started tumbling, it would seem to make little sense to consider trying to attach them to satellites already on orbit.

    However fitting them in new satellites seems like a no-brainer if they work, what with companies starting to get sued for failing to dispose of their failed satellites correctly.

  3. Dizzy Dwarf

    Magnetorque Coil

    This is just a magnetorque coil plus some marketing.

    1. Jan 0

      Re: Magnetorque Coil

      For small values of "just".

  4. lglethal Silver badge
    Go

    I would strongly propose that this is an Item for future satellites, to be attached to them before launch.

    Evidence:

    Number 1 - it has a hole pattern at the base (and screws) for attachment. You cannot apply such a pattern to an object already in space.

    Number 2 - the magnets are used for the detumbling operation and not for attachment. (There is very little ferrous material used in a Satellite, so magnetic attachment would be all but impossible anyway. Most Satellite structures are Aluminium).

    Number 3 - the cost of sending up a Tumbler with some sort of propulsive aircraft to fly it to a piece of space junk would be phenomenal!

    From my reading on this, this is a small light item that just works to stop an end of life satellite from spinning out of control, so that a future deorbiting mission can come and collect the defunct satellite. Work is definitely still needed on that second part, but this would definitely help to make that easier. (Plus if it can be used for a bit of standard attitude control in a normal mission, then it will prolong satellite life, and that should help to make it cost/weight/space effective to actual install...)

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      "so that a future deorbiting mission can come and collect the defunct satellite."

      It may be that tumbling prevents an EoL satellite from firing thrusters to deorbit itself. In that case stopping the tumbling would eliminate the need for a deorbiting mission.

    2. vtcodger Silver badge

      Certainly cute and maybe useful

      It's cute and maybe useful

      1. For other Americans, 100g is about 3.5 ounces. Assuming it works (and I do assume that), it seems quite impressive

      2. I doubt it'd work with spin stabilized satellites. (Spin stabilization was used in some early satellites to keep them in a known orientation) But I don't think there are very many of those nowadays. And it wouldn't be needed anyway? Their orientation is stable. Although collecting a spinning satellite for deorbiting might not be so easy.

      3. Many (most?) satellites need to be slowly rotated once per orbit in order to keep the bottom of the vehicle (where the sensors most likely are) pointed "down". There are various ways of accomplishing that. Presumably this gizmo doesn't generate enough torque to interfere with active three-axis control if it's present during the platform's active lifetime.

      4. Rather to my surprise, there already seem to be some somewhat similar devices in use. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_attitude_control#Types_of_stabilization -- the section headed passive attitude control.

      5. I agree that mounting one of these things mechanically on a dead satellite while in orbit using screw/bolts/rivets looks to be quite impractical. Assuming one could catch up with an expired orbiting platform and work on it, I guess you could attach this damper to a prepositioned plate of magnetic material. Or velcro. Or maybe glue if there are satisfactory adhesives that can set in a vacuum. I doubt any of that would be practical

      1. CountCadaver Silver badge

        Re: Certainly cute and maybe useful

        Anaerobic adhesives might work

  5. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

    I have two thoughts

    Once affixed, the device "dissipates the kinetic energy and angular momentum thanks to eddy currents resulting from differential angular rates between the satellite and the Earth's magnetic field, eventually stopping the tumbling motion."

    This text was either generated by the BOfH's random excuse generator - or a HHGttG fan:

    "Why," Arthur said, "is there a sofa in that field?"

    "I told you!" shouted Ford, leaping to his feet. "Eddies in the space-time continuum."

    "And this is his sofa is it?"

    1. FrogsAndChips Silver badge

      Re: I have two thoughts

      That was my thought too. What was your second one?

      1. Julz

        Re: I have two thoughts

        Oh no, not again...

        1. bemusedHorseman

          Re: I have two thoughts

          "Hi, ground! I wonder if it will be friends with me?"

  6. Lee D Silver badge

    Space Junk is a problem, but it's a problem because we don't take some very simple steps. Like:

    - Before you're allowed to launch into space, you must deposit the full current cost of decommissioning your equipment. The money accumulates interest, is used to deorbit yours and other satellites. You don't get it back (unless your satellite literally never made it into space, I suppose).

    - You sign a waiver that says that ANYONE can de-orbit your gear once it's declared defunct (because touching a Chinese satellite that you think is space debris only to start a war when it turns out to be a stealthy military satellite is a serious concern).

    - Standardised equipment, orbits and permissions for everyone.

    And none of that is going to happen, purely because of petty human politics and geographic boundaries.

    1. Roland6 Silver badge

      > You sign a waiver that says that ANYONE can de-orbit your gear once it's declared defunct

      Also create a register; if your satellite isn’t on the register, it’s junk ie. Defunct. Should solve the super stealth military satellite problem…

    2. Justthefacts Silver badge

      Rent-seeking

      “ the full current cost of decommissioning your equipment…..The money….. is used to deorbit yours and other satellites.”

      Two issues: a) What is the cost, and who defines it? B) Who gets the profit, or workshare (depending on your mindset), of the deorbiting activity?

      For example, if I am Starlink, and I claim I can de-orbit for $2M each…..what valid reason is there for forcing me to give $10M each, on the basis that is what a government-selected contractor would charge? And why stop at $10M? The government isn’t paying, so they have no incentive to keep the quoted cost down. Quite the opposite as more cost is more jobs in their own country.

      Secondly. if I am the EU Commission who has “bought” some Galileo satellites from OHB, and launching on Falcon9, who must I pay? The home country of OHB (Germany?), myself (l’etat c’est moi)? Or the US government (it’s a US launch facility)?

      1. catprog

        Re: Rent-seeking

        Or more likely.

        I am Starlink and I show even without intervention they deorbit by themselves therefore I do not need to pay anything.

        And all the geostationary stats become unprofitable overnight.

        1. Justthefacts Silver badge

          Re: Rent-seeking

          Yeah, I know Starlink is generally too low to have a problem, I just picked something everyone would have heard of. MEO is really where the problem lies.

          Having said which, there are just so *many* Starlinks, that they probably don’t want any significant fraction of them tumbling, even within a 5-10 year natural deorbit. Each one becomes something you need to manage on an orbital plane, and they just don’t have the manpower to have dozens of such out of 10,000

  7. Luiz Abdala
    Facepalm

    How do you attach the detumbler to something that is already tumbling?

    That question was left unanswered... If the debris is already spinning at a signifcant pace, how do you hook it up?

    As preventive measure on new satellites, sure. But if the proverbial turd is already spinning after hitting the fan, how do you stop that?

    I'm reading the article again in case I missed the explanation.

    (...)

    Ok, so this thing prevents tumbling. But there's no way to fix it nicely, once it gets out of control, then. Alright. One problem at a time.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like