Comments
Hacker News
Waste of fucking money. The X that fall per year is nothing compared to the millions of tons of other pollution.
by sscaryterry
100 tons of metal-based rock falls to earth daily from the solar system.
So... We still don't know if aluminum on satellites can be a problem or not.
Yes, it's nice that failed experiments get reported. But why another press article claiming the problem that this one research has been failing for a decade to show that exists?
by marcosdumay
> However, the rapidly increasing numbers of launches to low Earth orbit now threaten to increase the levels of space junk reentering the atmosphere.
Isn't it not space junk if it is burning up in the atmosphere? Kinda conflating two different concerns here that are somewhat mutually exclusive.
by fastball
So do incinerating satellites create tunnels of conductive plasma through the atmosphere? Perhaps they are creating short circuits in the air. Could pieces of junk reaching the lower atmosphere cause lightning strikes by creating conductive paths? When I read the title about "plasma tunnels" that's what I thought the article was going to be about, not wind tunnels.
by rapjr9
What would be the number of reentries in the near future?
5-20 satellites daily?
At first glance, it seems negligible.
On the hand, given the intentional nature if disposable low-orbit, 20 more than ideal.
by piskov
Satellites have many chlorinated and florinated chemicals, so being vaporized means introducing large volumes to the upper atmosphere where they can catalyze the destruction of ozone molecules. I'd be interested how the volume compares to other sources of atmospheric halogens. They could hardly match the quantity of refrigerant gases released, but being deposited directly in the upper atmosphere may make them more potent.
by bolangi
Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Waste of fucking money. The X that fall per year is nothing compared to the millions of tons of other pollution.by sscaryterry
- 100 tons of metal-based rock falls to earth daily from the solar system.
- So... We still don't know if aluminum on satellites can be a problem or not.
Yes, it's nice that failed experiments get reported. But why another press article claiming the problem that this one research has been failing for a decade to show that exists?
by marcosdumay - > However, the rapidly increasing numbers of launches to low Earth orbit now threaten to increase the levels of space junk reentering the atmosphere.
Isn't it not space junk if it is burning up in the atmosphere? Kinda conflating two different concerns here that are somewhat mutually exclusive.
by fastball - So do incinerating satellites create tunnels of conductive plasma through the atmosphere? Perhaps they are creating short circuits in the air. Could pieces of junk reaching the lower atmosphere cause lightning strikes by creating conductive paths? When I read the title about "plasma tunnels" that's what I thought the article was going to be about, not wind tunnels.by rapjr9
- What would be the number of reentries in the near future?
5-20 satellites daily?
At first glance, it seems negligible.
On the hand, given the intentional nature if disposable low-orbit, 20 more than ideal.
by piskov - Satellites have many chlorinated and florinated chemicals, so being vaporized means introducing large volumes to the upper atmosphere where they can catalyze the destruction of ozone molecules. I'd be interested how the volume compares to other sources of atmospheric halogens. They could hardly match the quantity of refrigerant gases released, but being deposited directly in the upper atmosphere may make them more potent.by bolangi