this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
46 points (97.9% liked)

Spaceflight

625 readers
25 users here now

Your one-stop shop for spaceflight news and discussion.

All serious posts related to spaceflight are welcome! JAXA, ISRO, CNSA, Roscosmos, ULA, RocketLab, Firefly, Relativity, Blue Origin, etc. (Arca and Pythom, if you must).

Other related space communities:

Related meme community:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah we probably should start being more careful about dumping our spacecraft, but not sure the ISS is the one to experiment on.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's really too bad NASA won't boost it up and "park" it in space.

I reckon Point Nemo is going to be a treasure trove for some future archaeologists.

[–] burble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Extra fuel needs aside, if you park it higher and it breaks up...

[–] Dindonmasker@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

You mean when it breaks up...

[–] basmati@lemmus.org 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It will have more energy when hitting the atmosphere and disintegrate more completely.

[–] Steve@startrek.website 2 points 1 month ago

This is not correct if it broke up in a circular orbit

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Just push it out of orbit and it'll float away.

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"Into another environment?"

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It'll be beyond the environment.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

"No, no, it’ll be boosted beyond the environment. It’ll not be in the environment."

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But it must be somewhere… Well what's out there?

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"There is nothing out there… all there is … is empty space …and vacuum …and sunlight."

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

and 20,000 tons of crude oil

[–] Heliumfart@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

That's not how it works, it would take an insane amount of fuel to get it out of Earth's gravity well.

[–] SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Maser said that ocean dumping has historically been a short-sighted solution that’s comparable, he explained, to 80 years ago when it was considered a good idea to dump unused ammunition from World War II in the oceans. “Today, it turns out that the ammunition is corroding and spreads its explosives into the marine environment,” he told SpaceNews.

Munitions dumping was on a much larger scale and much more hazardous compounds. Tens of thousands of tons in close proximity against coastlines.

I imagine reentry is going to effectively incinerate everything except very large chunks of metal, and we regularly deliberately sink steel ships to produce artificial reefs. There's unlikely to be any quantities of plastics or fuel oils left unlike what you get in even minor marine incidents.

Any more advanced disposal plan is going to involve putting a lot more mass into orbit, which means burning a lot more propellant.

[–] cashew@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What if we fire a missile at it as it reenters to break it up. More pieces, more surface area, more incineration.

[–] SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 month ago

A missile is a way to get explosives from point A to point B. We might as well just put explosives on the ISS in the most effective places, removing the need to aim or get a ship/aircraft in the right place at the right time, plus you probably need far less explosive.

[–] index@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Hurry up we need to free some space for the new starlinks