2 ms·
It’s not a good thing. The only somewhat okay reason to go down this path is if you know you have to cut spending and want to terminate missions safely rather t
by SilverElfin 1y ago
It’s not a good thing. The only somewhat okay reason to go down this path is if you know you have to cut spending and want to terminate missions safely rather than leaving junk. But this seems like a biased decision for obvious reasons.
- Tadpole9181 1y agoThat's not even an okay reason. We know where it is, it's in one piece, it'll last for years even if we do nothing with it. Destroying it is insane, inexcusable Stalin-esque behavior.
- SilverElfin 1y agoYea but you may lose the people, hardware, whatever to remove it from orbit easily. SpaceX designs their satellites to passively deorbit within 5 years to remove the space junk risk. But satellites in higher orbits take much longer.