Sky Is Falling: What’s the Chance of Space Debris Hitting Earthlings?

February 27, 2008

  • February 27, 2008 at 10:23 am
    Bill Rempel says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    More people have been killed by poodles falling out of NYC apartment buildings, than have been killed by falling space debris.

    ROFLMAOPIMP!

    There are two dynamics at work here, both psychological.

    First, humans are really really bad at measuring risk, and focus on spectactular things rather than the ones that are really dangerous. We saw this earlier with ATVs and the focus on young riders, when far more children die in the back seats of cars; heart disease kills more women than breast cancer, but what gets the attention? etc. So it’s no surprise that people fixate on “space junk” and not on looking both ways when crossing the street, or on refusing to apply makeup while driving to work, both of which will kill more people this year.

    Second, people really want to believe that “our government” works “for” us, and they really want to believe that the shootdown was about safety. Really, it’s all about international posturing (we’ll show those Chin- er, Chinese we can shoot down satellites!) and inter-branch military posturing (hey, the Navy can do this, too!), and not safety.

    If the “government” really wanted to spend money saving lives by preventing accidental deaths, they could have taken all the millions spent shooting dow this satellite and converted one or two major intersections into roundabouts … at a much more effective lives per dollar ratio.

  • February 27, 2008 at 1:54 am
    Al says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “If the ‘government’ really wanted to spend money saving lives by preventing accidental deaths, they could have taken all the millions spent shooting dow this satellite and converted one or two major intersections into roundabouts … at a much more effective lives per dollar ratio.”

    So you don’t think that the government should concentrate on defense? Doesn’t the defense of our country,including the intimidation of enemies and potential enemies, save lives? Constitutionally, unless the intersections tou want turned into roundabouts are “postal roads,” the federal government has no business spending a dime on them (despite its pork-laden spending on “infrastructure,” including highways).

    Your other remarks are well-taken though.

  • February 27, 2008 at 2:07 am
    nbboy2 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I was wondering why the Space Shuttle couldn’t just pick the satellite up on their way back to earth. They have that big cargo bay which was empty and the robotic arm to tuck the satellite in. Since satellites of that variety cost around $500m wouldn’t it have been better to bring it back to earth for recycling, if nothing else, than to just blow it up? Anyone have any insight?

  • February 27, 2008 at 2:19 am
    lastbat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    My thought is the whole thing was an intimidation/training scenario. We got to show that we could blow stuff out of space if we want to and the people who would do the blowing up got some valuable OJT.

    I wonder if it would be cost effective to have the shuttle bring back space junk for recycling. There’s enough of it up there. Something for NASA to look into.

  • February 27, 2008 at 2:21 am
    ad says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I read an article yesterday, speculating that the USA had more concerns that the remains might get into the wrong hands.
    But, this was speculation, just as this article is. It may be just what was presented, to prevent the toxic fuels from entering a populated area. A lot of people love to come up with conspiracy theories.

    Personally, I was thankful to see that they have something like this that might save me someday. I’m no different than anyone else, in that I expect not to ever have a warhead dropped in my neighborhood. I know this was a planned target, but it still gives me some confidence.

  • February 27, 2008 at 2:21 am
    Al says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It probably would be too heavy to land with a ten ton payload, since it glides to an unpowered landing.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*