
A place spacecraft go to die - mmariani
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41683839
======
Avshalom
Tangentially related:
[https://pro.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=2K...](https://pro.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=2K7O3RJHCE03)

Rocket debris in Kazakhstan. Which I am always looking for reasons to post.

~~~
ge96
I seent it

This is that Korolev cross with the four boosters maxing a cross pattern (at
least that's what I remember this from) also a random cool thing is the yo-yo
despin with the strings/mass pretty sweet.

------
GlenTheMachine
Note that this only applies to low earth orbit. Geosynchronous spacecraft
don't re-enter; they instead are retired to the “graveyard”, a supersynch
orbit about 500 to 1000 km above GEO.

~~~
ge96
Curious is it safer to not just fly them off into space (requires more energy)
or they want to know where it is rather than unkown?

~~~
wereHamster
Requires too much energy.

[https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29785/is-the-
esc...](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29785/is-the-escape-
velocity-at-geosynchronous-earth-orbit-0km-hr)

~~~
ge96
Not sure if I understand right to get to that circular orbital velocity 70% of
escape velocity is required so since it's still in orbit it still has that 70%
then is 1% enough or do you need the other 30%? And even if it's just 1%
that's probably a lot with regard to mass shed from off the pad.

Laser space brooms haha. Or drone ion thrusters that can latch onto things and
push them. Not sure if there is an exothermic rocket that is electric with
high impulse (not take forever)

The drone thrusters is from the show The Expanse haha

~~~
wereHamster
If you're flying 70m/s at a stable circular orbit then you need to accelerate
to 100m/s in order to escape. That's an increase of 42%.

------
igni
Reminds me a lot of Skylab debris (mentioned in the article):
[http://mentalfloss.com/article/70708/nasas-
unpaid-400-litter...](http://mentalfloss.com/article/70708/nasas-
unpaid-400-littering-ticket-skylab-debris-australia)

------
perlgeek
Wasn't there some speculation about destroying satellites with ground-based
high-powered lasers?

One could try to blast this thing into multiple smaller pieces, most of which
would likely burn up in the atmosphere.

If it doesn't work, the failed attempt shouldn't increase the risk for
anybody.

~~~
wereHamster
You can't destroy (melt?) a satellite with a ground-based laser. What you
perhaps mean is to use a laser to slow down satellites such that they fall
back to earth. Currently we don't have any efficient means to deorbit space
debris. A laser is one possible method.

------
maybeiambatman
Is there a protocol for warning people if an out-of-control satellite crash is
imminent in a populated area?

Who is responsible for covering damages caused by this satellite?

~~~
sandworm101
When skylab landed on australia they sent a littering bill to Nasa. The
general rule is that, if you want your hardware back, you have to pay damages.
A sat isn't generally a big deal even over a populated area. It's a lot less
damaging than a small plane crash. Those happen every day.

Depending on who you talk to, much more natural rock falls to earth every day
(asteroids etc) than satellites. A hundred pound rock might make a local
newspaper headline but only if someone sees it.

------
demarq
what about the reactors? surely this must have some environmental impact...

~~~
exDM69
Reactors? The article doesn't mention any reactors.

If you're talking about radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) used on
spacecraft, they are limited to deep space (Voyager, Cassini, etc) and long
duration planetary missions (Curiosity rover) only. Only a handful of 1960's
military satellites used RTGs on Earth orbit [0].

RTGs also tend to be rather small, the environmental impact of the small
amount of Pu-238 shouldn't be very large (compared to nuclear testing or
nuclear incidents for example). There may be Hydrazine (propellant) or other
nasty environmental hazards on spacecraft that would be more significant.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Nuclear_power_systems_in_space)

~~~
demarq
thanks!

