... A lot, according to this newspaper. Because the more worried/stressed/scared you are, the more likely you are to feel you need to care about reading the news every day.
As for how worried you should actually be that you'll get hit by a piece of space debris: zero. You should be zero worried. And you should stop reading scaremongering newspapers like this and go find your information somewhere that is not actively trying to make you feel stressed and scared all the time.
Note: I'm not saying this story is not newsworthy. It is. I'm merely commenting on the awful writing style used in this article. Murdoch is to blame, no doubt.
Imagine that headline in a printed newspaper. It would look ridiculous-- like a supermarket magazine article. It feels to me as if the quality of most media presentation had devolved into blogging. Maybe this is a side effect of competition, but its terrible. Unfortunately, we must be in the minority, because the style must be making them money or they wouldn't be doing it.
Edit: changed actual to printed for clarity and added title
I think there are some agreements/treaties on how access to space will be done, but I believe they're quite US-centric, stemming from NASA's work in 50s. I don't believe that China (or Russia?) subscribe to that kind of regulation.
How do we incentivise all countries with launch capabilities to be good citizens in space? Cleaning up after themselves, controlling re-entries, thinking about ground safety, etc.
“Under the terms of the 1972 Space Liability Convention, a state which launches an object into space is liable for damages caused by that object. For the recovery efforts, the Canadian government billed the Soviet Union C$6,041,174.70 for expenses and additional compensation for future unpredicted expenses; the USSR eventually paid C$3 million.”
China, Russia and the USA ratified that convention.
>I don't believe that China (or Russia?) subscribe to that kind of regulation.
Most launches are being done by US/EU based companies. if those adhere to not polluting space in an unproductive manner then we'll be fine. making 'rules' that everyone can adhere to just leads to everyone sticking to the lowest common denominator. Which to me, is a worse situation than legislature picking up resposibility on their own.
Well, except the Falcon 9 rocket that did just that 2 months ago: https://geekologie.com/2021/03/a-falcon-9-rocket-made-an-unc...
Falcon 9 rockets usually land or attempt to, so that was a failure or malfunction, that left it out of control in a short-term orbit?
And in the Chinese one? Was this outcome expected or was it due to a failure to de-orbit in a controlled way?
Not if you limit it to anything that might fall to Earth any time soon.
> How do we incentivise all countries with launch capabilities to be good citizens in space?
re: China and Russia, we need to worry more about how to get Space Marines and defense systems up there.
The whole "co-operative, neutral citizens of space" ship has long since sailed, and anyone who thinks we shouldn't at least treat it like contested international waters is naive.
And Cosmos 954 was definitely no joke.
If a satellite is being retired is it possible to fire it's rockets to set it on a trajectory to land in a predictable location say Sahara desert or the Marianas trench?
This would obviously not apply to nuclear satellites.
At this point it's just a tumbling chunk of solid material
See this video about it https://youtu.be/06GUEkc4EEA