5 ms·

I for one would like to see the satellites modified with a heat shield so they could punch through and hit a designated deorbit zone. I would even offer my back

• lupusreal 3y ago
  Disney corp could even pay to have regularly scheduled "shooting stars" over their parks.
  • phkahler 3y ago
    I've thought about the idea of launching a whole payload full of sand and marbles in a way that produces a show like that over a wide area. But now it's getting nearly impossible with so many satellites up there.
• ploynog 3y ago
  Wouldn't that be some form of kinetic orbital bombardment. Not sure that you want to have this in your backyard.
  • lucioperca 3y ago
    Why not use this energy for mining? What is the terminal velocity anyhow?
  • Anarch157a 3y ago
    It wouldn't. Small objects, like satellites, decelerate to terminal velocity. The impact of one of those would be the same as if they fell from an aeroplane.
  • lolc 3y ago
    I'm sure I want it. Unfortunately my house is too close to the center of my backyard. My neighbours are too close too. Any stray parts would cut into the proceeds of ticket sales to the bunker at the center where you can watch live streams of the parcels hitting on top of you.
• zeristor 3y ago
  Nifty idea. But don’t satellites have toxic components? While most of it will be burnt up some bits get to the ground. Satellites are made from material, and can’t be safely disassembled. Rentry is uncontrolled incineration, depending on a large part of the pollutants being diluted across the sky, and the ground and water on which they fall. Background levels would rise.
  • mlindner 3y ago
    > But don’t satellites have toxic components? That depends on how you define "toxic". If you mean toxic fuels, most do not. However the idea is just terribly impracticable. Heat shields are heavy and more than that you would need to design your satellite around the heat shield. It would need to be able to fold up like origami into the heat shield. You also need to add extra fuel to perform the targed re-entry. This whole idea is bad.
    • colechristensen 3y ago
      >If you mean toxic fuels, most do not. Hydrazine is quite common and quite toxic, of the "seek medical attention immediately" variety. 1 ppm is a threshold for exposure for a few hours, satellites can launch with hundreds of pounds of the stuff. A crashed satellite would not be safe to be around, you might get liver failure if you go poking around one and get a good ammonia-like whiff of hydrazine.
      • mlindner 3y ago
        Hydrazine is certainly on some satellites, but by numbers of satellites launched and by mass of satellites launched hydrazine is not on a minority of them. Most satellites being launched by mass and number are now Starlink satellites which don't have hydrazine. Even then, the second largest category of satellites is smallsats and cubesats which often have no propulsion at all or use cold gas.
  • Zigurd 3y ago
    The semiconductors in satellites do have some toxic elements that would be released from otherwise inert conditions on burning up on reentry. but that's orders of magnitude less than what's put into the atmosphere from burning coal and gas. Coal contains lots of stuff other than carbon.
• RugnirViking 3y ago
  they kinda already do, there's a place called the spaceship graveyard where de-orbiting craft target to avoid collisions with inhabited areas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_cemetery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_cemetery I've often wondered if you could take out a boat there to see a particularly impressive de-orbit. Maybe when they do the ISS, which is scheduled to go there eventually. There have been cases where craft ended up in inhabited areas. iirc one hit australia and upset some people a few years ago?
  • lolc 3y ago
    I remember watching a video of people on a boat waiting for the fireworks of a satellite overhead.