Comments
threebillion6 t1_jcza4hr wrote
That's exactly what we need. Something to deorbit faster. Otherwise we're gonna be sending UP more things to bring more things down. Seems like a massive waste to send something up just to bring stuff down.
Due_Start_3597 t1_jcze5g5 wrote
I always thought satellites had some little thrusters on them with some nominal way to make micro-adjustments?
I figured if they wanted to deorbit them, they could be by making "deorbit trajectories"?
Is that not true?
GallantChaos t1_jczf6o4 wrote
I see two possibilities for why this may not be:
-
Those thrusters may be necessary for collision avoidance during the deorbit phase. (to prevent hitting in-service satellites)
-
The thrusters are used and depleted to keep the satellites in orbit - and thus in service - as long as possible.
Adding a parachute like this may help increase drag and can be deployed with little additional cost/mass.
burnbabyburn11 t1_jd1z0zl wrote
Gyroscopes bro
Zkootz t1_jd2cudw wrote
What would a gyro do more than rotate the satellite?
Mackie_Macheath t1_jd2j9hh wrote
Orient the satellite different so the chute creates less drag or move even over the long trajectory slightly sidewards.
Zkootz t1_jd2l6m7 wrote
Yeah but did the person not mean that gyroscopes could be used in vase thrusters are not working/out of fuel?
GoodyPower t1_jd331cu wrote
I believe gyros can/could orient satellites especially those with a sail to use solar winds to deorbit.
https://issfd.org/ISSFD_2011/S12-Orbit.Dynamics.3-ODY3/S12_P3_ISSFD22_PF_038.pdf
Thelastosirus t1_jd63mfo wrote
You are literally describing the Lightsail satellite experiment that went into orbit awhile back. It's meant to increase orbit using the pressure from the sun based off the angle of the sail, sort of like a wind sail. Just to keep you from wondering it actually works!
TekguyTheRed t1_jd0dw73 wrote
That's partly true but there's more to it than that.
Satellites larger than a cube sat tend to have thrusters for orbital trajectory maintenance and to desaturate gyroscopes. But what tends to happen is that since they cost so much to get onto orbit you generally want to maximise the operational life of the satellite by using as much of your fuel as possible to stay up. So most operators just use all the fuel and leave nothing to de-orbiting. And if you put it into a orbit above 600km the time taken to naturally decay due to atmospheric and orbital perturbations becomes long, 10+ years where the satellite is uncontrollable and is a hazard.
New regulations are being introduced to reduce this sort of issue but it's more of a guideline than a law so companies with a commercial interest tend to ignore it.
What this development is really good for is small cubesats which make up the bulk of satellites launched these day by over a order of magnitude. Since they don't normally have thrusters to deorbit a drag shute like this is a cheap easy way for responsible operators to keep space tidy.
This is all assuming the satellite survives it's mission to the point where de-orbiting is desired/option. Many satellites lose control to general wear and tear, radiation damage or debris strikes such as Envisat.
PrematureJack t1_jd1vf75 wrote
Not all satellites. Most of the satellites I’ve worked on simply turn their solar arrays into a high drag configuration if they need to make adjustments to miss something, and when they reach end of life they just turn and stay that way to deorbit. If you’re in Low earth orbit even a dead sat will deorbit in about 5-10 years.
tx69er t1_jd0l4qz wrote
Some do, but typically not these little microsattelites. Little ones like this typically rely solely on drag, which can take a while.
PineappleLemur t1_jd10iuk wrote
There's a lot of space junk just floating around.. dead satellite and such that are just waiting to collide with something.
Fairing pieces with no control for example.
Baremegigjen t1_jd2zsjp wrote
Most operational satellites do for station keeping in order to maintain the proper orbit and to move them out of the orbit after their useful life so other satellites can take their place. Depending on the orbit some are deorbited and come back to earth; otters are boosted up into orbits that aren’t used.
The issue is everything in orbit is technically a satellite and there’s are tons of junk up there from rocket bodies and formerly operational satellites to debris of all types including from Russia blowing up one of their satellites a year or two ago, leaving hundreds of pieces of various sizes orbiting the earth. All of which need to be tracked to so as to avoid collisions with objects currently in space (ISS and other satellites) or to be launched (you don’t want to lose a $1B satellite by launching into a debris cloud.
NinjaMoreLikeANonja t1_jd582os wrote
Changing trajectory means changing orbit and changing orbit takes energy. The presumed (and soon to be legally mandated) end of life goal of all smallsats and cubesats is to burn up in the atmosphere. You can do that by reserving a last gasp of propellant on the satellite to lower the satellite's orbit, but that assumes that there is a thruster on board somewhere. A lot of small satellites don't have thrusters. The drag sail approach is nice because it's passive, and all the energy required is collected from atmospheric impact rather than stored on the satellite as a propellant of some kind.
_shapeshifting t1_jd0pe06 wrote
but what if the one thing you send up there is responsible for eliminating 100x it's mass in disparate debris?
threebillion6 t1_jd0uh5y wrote
How? Are you picking up that stuff and carrying it around while you collect the rest of the stuff? Added mass means more fuel you need to take up, to be able to move between orbits. Sending up the ability to deorbit itself removes the need for us to send up another thing. Along with actually getting that thing into orbit. Who's gonna pay for it? These are just honest questions. I'd love to be able to send up something that can maneuver around and collect debris, but it's an engineering feat to do that.
_shapeshifting t1_jd0zcqw wrote
you don't actually collect it, you use a laser to turn small deadly things into significantly less dense, less deadly clouds of plasma.
EDIT: the same people who launch their own commercial satellites have a financial incentive to pay for the solution to make their satellites safer.
threebillion6 t1_jd10mt3 wrote
How powerful a laser are we talking about? I could see that going badly very quickly.
_shapeshifting t1_jd12pst wrote
powerful enough.
I can imagine paint flecks destroying the ISS, so which one do you want: a solution with risks or risks without solution?
KruppeTheWise t1_jd10nud wrote
If you aim the laser correctly the gases boiling off the sats surface will push it out of orbit too.
_shapeshifting t1_jd1344t wrote
that'd be a really strong laser lol.
I'm imagining this as a solution for the 1 million+ objects the size of flecks of paint. maybe the ones as big as a marble.
to boil a whole satellite would be hardcore but also insane
n1elkyfan t1_jd19xy4 wrote
One idea is to use something like rocket labs which is the Photon. It's used as a kickstage for other satellites but could be used to deorbit other space junk since it is usually deorbited anyways.
infinity_limit t1_jd1kci1 wrote
-
The cost to drag ISS back to earth “safely”- 1 billion $ https://spacenews.com/nasa-planning-to-spend-up-to-1-billion-on-space-station-deorbit-module/
-
Some kids somewhere , we will do it for 100$ net and a some batteries!!
MT_Kinetic_Mountain t1_jczcsmv wrote
It's actually crazy, how SpaceX has allowed so much science to be done at a more affordable rate. Totally unimaginable before. Can't wait to see the new limits, especially once Starship starts getting orbital.
Zeustitandog t1_jczvly8 wrote
We just gotta hope the toddler at the top doesn’t mess with the blocks
MT_Kinetic_Mountain t1_jczy637 wrote
Hasn't done anything wrong with the company so far. Anyway, Gwynne Shotwell is in charge of Starship now and she's as qualified as you can get in SpaceX.
Zeustitandog t1_jczyw54 wrote
The fact you say so far is all that really needs to be said
No matter how qualified of workers you have or even leaders
If the guy at top can randomly fuck everything up at any moment
Aslong as Twitter keeps musky occupied I do believe space x will do amazing things
But the fact we have a slave owner raised man child leading the future of space exploration is a tad bit scary
Maybe I’m just stupid tho
MT_Kinetic_Mountain t1_jd003dz wrote
I say so far because I'm not blessed with the ability to see into the future, and I don't like eating my words.
Yeah, you are correct. Leadership is important. Musk has been important to SpaceX since the early days. That dynamic has likely changed since the regularity of Falcon 9 launches (like 3 launches in 3 days or something, it's fucking insane)
Musk is an idiot for getting involved in twitter. The only way to fix twitter is with diesel and matches (along with most other social platforms)
No comment on the slave owner thing because that's new to me.
We're still quite a while away from SpaceX sending private astronauts for space colonisation. It will mostly be scientists from nasa and other space orgs
I don't know you and therefore cannot and will not make any comments on whether you're stupid or not
Bonus: Have a nice day :)
Zeustitandog t1_jd016t5 wrote
Sorry definitely gonna make multiple comments his father I believe owned an emerald mine which employed slavery and he is known to have benifits from that
Agree with everything up to that part so far
okmiddle t1_jd0tn3l wrote
Source that it employed slavery? Everything I have read says that he once owned $80,000 worth of shares in a mine in Zambia.
none-ya-mouse t1_jd1ue01 wrote
His father owned an emerald mine. Possible it has some abusive labor practices, but unlikely to be outright slavery in 1969.
His father was elected to a city council running for the anti-apartheid party, so if he was a "slave-owner", he was running against his own interests.
Zeustitandog t1_jd2kz3b wrote
They beat slaves to death and there was proof they starved children to death
I literally won’t even read past the possibly abusive labor practices
They starved kids
And beat adults to the point they couldn’t walk
If that isn’t abusive labor practices you need mental help
Zeustitandog t1_jd01fcy wrote
Thanks for the nice day
Sadly I do believe corporations will be the first to send astronauts deeper into space then any government agency has so far
If ya remember Altho you won’t remind me in 15 ish years when we send someone to the asteroid belt
Altho I will say that space x will be sending people far out on government money
MT_Kinetic_Mountain t1_jd04ma5 wrote
My original comment was about the the renewed hope in space. I was expressing excitement about the new horizons we can achieve.
So, thanks for really bringing down the vibes, bro. I'm well aware of Elon's alleged past (from what I've heard, the emerald mine hasn't really been backed up). Either way, I'm ignoring Elon and focusing on SpaceX. The company filled with aspiring people in both leadership and in employees. They began the company with the dream of revolutionising humanity's perspective of space and they've more than achieved that and they're still achieving more. That's impressive and rare in these times. I think, (maybe hope is a better word) SpaceX will provide a huge net positive for this planet, and I eagerly wait to see where we will go.
There's my little speech done. I'm done with Elon and his shit. I just don't care anymore. Just because I'd wasted time idolising him in the past, doesn't mean I'm gonna spend the future hate-worshipping him. It's boring.
Zeustitandog t1_jd05z1r wrote
Well this is a change didnt know about the slaves before now you do
Elon himself has backed the emerald mine up so idk where you getting it’s fake from It’s very well known to be true
America is filled with apiring people and hard working ones has been for well over a century
We invented nukes the most terrifying weapons in existence We’ve created cures for many diseases
We’ve created diseases worst then anything god could make and I’m not even religious
Net positive definitely won’t be done other then earth applications space costs a fuckton and has infinite potential
Takes a fuckton to even tap into that potential though
Didn’t hate worship him just pointing out the fact one of humanities greatest chances for space exploration their main leader is a toddler
If that’s hate worship to you you definitely a child because I could go a lot worst then that have you been on the internet long?
And hope is definitely a better word because there’s very little chance it gets far enough fast enough
Sockbottom69 t1_jd0mhqm wrote
It's great that he took his shitty dad's money and did great things with it, props to Elon 👍
Zeustitandog t1_jd0tm9z wrote
He damn near broke a multi billion dollar company in half a year
He got a electric car a few years early that’s collecting good minds not doing anything impressive
Now he’s slowing down electric car technology doing the same things he once preached against
He hasn’t done great things he’s a the one in a million millionaires that becomes a billionaire
Sockbottom69 t1_jd0wnm9 wrote
"He got a electric car a few years early"
Do you mean he started an electric car company that everyone thought that would would have no chance of succeeding and turned it into the most valuable car company in the world?
You don't think him starting SpaceX was a great thing? Another feat no one believed would work?
Zeustitandog t1_jd154pw wrote
I do believe him starting space x was a bad thing actually good by technicalities
If we had given the money we gave to space x to NASA years earlier instead of starting up a space company we could of done something new not just doing the same thing but a new person doing it omg
MT_Kinetic_Mountain t1_jd24yyr wrote
Everytime the government gives NASA money, the wrap it up in a bunch of conditions that effectively hampers any real work they can do. Think about how much money they wasted on SLS for it to basically be an old rehash using old engines and providing no real benefit. Even nasa acknowledges how much of a success the commercial program has been. They no longer have to fork over huge sums of money to Russia just for access to the ISS. SpaceX proved that Old Space was holding things back.
Curb your Elon hate boner and acknowledge these amazing people and their amazing achievements
Zeustitandog t1_jd2kvo4 wrote
And half of these problems are literally being solved in your own comment
If the only issue is money
And we’re giving billions to a new player
Idk
Maybe the money going to old player
Would do more omg
NASA has asked for a new rocket for decades and the government hasn’t paid in
Your love boner for Elon has ignored the fact even NASA admitted if they kept their budget from the 60s we coulda had men on the moon 24/7 along with possible asteroid visits in the 2020s aka this decade
Your the one who won’t realize starting space over and over is dumb
Half of the rocket tech in space x ain’t even new their using old ideas with tens of billions to make new ones
Wow
Almost like someone else coulda done that for the public
Jaker788 t1_jd2oqgm wrote
NASA has been given billions for a new rocket. It's called the SLS. That was the cheap option. Building a new rocket through the many private contractors that actually build it would have been a never ending nightmare.
SpaceX has made rocket engines more powerful and more advanced than any organization has done before. The Raptor is by far more than NASA would've gone for because those other companies would've said it's too hard.
I think you fail to realize how difficult it all is. More money to NASA wouldn't solve anything right now, we wouldn't be getting a new rocket, NASA doesn't even want a new rocket to maintain. They like having a private contractor with their own complete rocket with everything handled on their end, and NASA simply paying for a launch. SpaceX is the biggest reason and the biggest advocate of fixed price contracts compared to the old companies like Boeing and their failed Starliner still wanting cost+, that's another win for NASA and space progress as well
Zeustitandog t1_jd3lwsw wrote
Honestly arguing with you is pointless at this point
You keep saying what I’m saying
Then saying and that’s why space x is good
The reasons space x are good are why NASA is bad
It would be pretty damn simple to change NASA those ways but there was no arguable reason to because of the issues you mentioned
Until now when other companies saw the chance to get in on a government contract
I’m stupid in a lot of things but not reading comprehension
You on the other hand
Might not be stupid in a lot of things but definitely are reading comprehension
And if you can’t understand what you read I doubt you’d be able to do anything
MT_Kinetic_Mountain t1_jd2q4vs wrote
Yeah, I don't think I'm going to bother to respond since its clear that you're completely ignorant on this.
Check out Eric Berger's Lift Off. He's a very competent space reporter and he wrote this book detailing the early exploits of SpaceX. It's definitely worth a read and really puts into frame what SpaceX have achieved here. And no it's not a love letter to Elon. It's got genuine recounts from the early employees of the company.
In your first reply to my comment, you'd suggested that you might be "stupid tho". I can't confirm anything for sure, but there is a chance you might be. Good luck with that. :)
Zeustitandog t1_jd3l53i wrote
I’d probably take NASA scientist and other government space agencies workers then a dude talking about the company he has investment in
Also what drugs were you on I need a few kids like that you went from nice and competent to idiot you need your pills m8
MT_Kinetic_Mountain t1_jd4gvbb wrote
Bro, you brought your negative ass attitude and reformer mindset into my comment about the the hopes for the future of space. Literally trying to make SpaceX seem worthless on a post about its success. I was being nice at first. I told you Idgaf about Elon anymore, only SpaceX and you doubled down with whatever repetitive Elon put downs twitter regularly likes to spout.
If you want content like that, go to r/enoughmuskspam
You might actually like the content there, despite their name making absolutely no sense
Zeustitandog t1_jd4hf87 wrote
Damn why so negative
I said the money shoulda been in NASA
You get this pissy
Talking about negative when you acting like this
Zeustitandog t1_jd4hgeb wrote
Are you projecting?
Sockbottom69 t1_jd1eg2w wrote
Uhh SpaceX did do something new, they made reusable rockets which makes sending payloads to space waayyy cheaper and waayyy faster
Reddit-runner t1_jd2b8mk wrote
>But the fact we have a slave owner raised man child
Why would you gobble up and repeat such obvious wrong statements?
Musk has undoubtedly questionable views on many topics, but that doesn't mean we have to abandoned truth all together.
Zeustitandog t1_jd2km82 wrote
Well it’s a well known fact so I wouldn’t
If you can’t do the basics that owning majority share in a slave mine = slave owner it’s pretty damn simple
You don’t gotta beat the slave yourself for it to be true he could walk in there and out with a slave
Reddit-runner t1_jd2ml6s wrote
>If you can’t do the basics that owning majority share in a slave mine
That's exactly the part which isn't true.
Your particular social media bubble might tell you otherwise and will even link you dubious third hand info articles. But do yourself a favour and try to look up the name and location of that mine.
You will be very surprised.
Zeustitandog t1_jd3m4vh wrote
700 thousand out of a 1.8 million
You saying some other dude owned the rest of the mine
Or you just talking about your Elon boner media
Reddit-runner t1_jd3wnw8 wrote
I'm saying the whole story is not true.
It's completely made up!
You will realise this once you try to look up the name or the location of this supposed mine.
To make my point very clear. I'll send you 50€ if your next comment contains the name and the location (together with verifiable sources) of the mine you think made Elon Musk "the son of a slave owner".
Zeustitandog t1_jd3xbor wrote
Well since you wanna bring up reading
I physically can’t you dumbass
His dad owned slaves
He’s the son of a slave owner
I never said he owned slaves
I said his daddy did and he could
Dumbass
If you rephrase that sentance I can answer it but for now it’s gibberish
[deleted] t1_jd46v0j wrote
[removed]
thecatwhatcandrive t1_jd3nenz wrote
"It's a well known fact"
Got a source you'd like to share? I'd love to be as enlightened as you are on the subject, but I can't just take some random lunatic from the internet's word that it's fact.
And you can fuckin' miss me with "do your own research". Where can I read this information you've got?
TheHiveminder t1_jd2m44l wrote
> Maybe I’m just stupid tho
You said it, Redditor for less than 2 months.
Fresque t1_jd1qs1n wrote
I think he knows too well not to fuck with SpaceX.
Anything else is fair game, though.
Zeustitandog t1_jd2l51x wrote
Once again proving my point
Anything else is fair game
The current basically world leading space exploration
Is led by a toddler who’s told he will get in trouble if he breaks it
And nobody sees issue from that because the people working on it are smart
It’s like having congress full of actual smart people every function of the government as a functioning intelligent person
Then having a literal toddler at the presidents office
Shit will definitely get done but it might get fucked up
Fresque t1_jd2o06f wrote
I never said he wasn't a toddler or defended the guy
Zeustitandog t1_jd3lzup wrote
And I never said you were defending the guy nor did I say you did
[deleted] t1_jd34j74 wrote
[deleted]
Zeustitandog t1_jd3k742 wrote
Thanks for proving my point
Half my comments are downvoted lmao
[deleted] t1_jd3kjbm wrote
[deleted]
Zeustitandog t1_jd3ku03 wrote
I feel like your a bot
[deleted] t1_jd3lpos wrote
[removed]
Keltic268 t1_jd3lu8k wrote
NYU Tandon and several other schools are about to launch satellites this spring we really are entering a new age.
MT_Kinetic_Mountain t1_jd3mc9k wrote
The Space Age we were promised, at last
[deleted] t1_jd57j6t wrote
[removed]
lughnasadh OP t1_jcyxzmj wrote
Submission Statement
We are used to anything space-based requiring massive engineering efforts and equally massive budgets.
This is interesting as it points to a future where cheap manufacturing could predominate. No doubt, there would still be a need for huge and complex engineering efforts, but if some useful space-based resources could be made this easy, wouldn't they quickly increase in number? Particularly as cheap reusable rockets predominate in the launch sector.
TheAntiMosby t1_jd3cxgy wrote
Hey there, Dan here. I was an Engineering Analyst on this project, and can tell you that aside from the frame, everything was either bought at a large store or 3D printed at home. The most expensive part was still the launch, however, which was donated to us by D-orbit.
BillHicksScream t1_jczkunr wrote
No. Thats not how development works here. The list of problems for humans operating in Space has only increased. Nor has there been any required breakthrough in a new method of energy usage, something to escape orbit and move through space cheaply. You will notice there is no fusion/warp/new element powered minivans.
There is no huge demand to fuel development anyways. Unlike the airplane, whose development is fueled by four factors: a cheap, common energy source, WW 1+2, lots of commercial & governmental uses to pay for development and the #1 reason: Flying is possible. Birds exist.
But there are no alien spaceships, which would tell us Star Trek is possible.
Fit_Manufacturer_444 t1_jd08r8d wrote
The downvotes on this comment shows how uneducated and braindead it is
BillHicksScream t1_jd111ff wrote
Humans like to dream. Its part of what makes us great.
But Neil Postman was right. We are Amusing Ourselves To Death - and Space is just one thing that's pretty cool to dream about. https://youtube.com/watch?v=3G8a4Tdnab8
And I can see now how Musk + Co. are intentionally selling fake future dreams to avoid the expensive work of dealing with the looming negative ecological & social disorder.
Emble12 t1_jd24ocq wrote
You don’t think a decrease of cost to orbit by a literal order of magnitude is a significant development?
[deleted] t1_jd2wulq wrote
[deleted]
BillHicksScream t1_jdayw5n wrote
>by a literal order of magnitude
LOL. You even repeat Musk's inane phrasing. Vaporbrain.
Emble12 t1_jdbe038 wrote
Ah yes, because Musk invented basic maths? Jesus.
BillHicksScream t1_jdd2qtc wrote
LOL. "a literal order of magnitude" makes no sense. It doesnt work as English and the current state of development is so primitive there's nothing to compare.
Emble12 t1_jdec2ks wrote
When you decrease something logarithmically by 10, that’s reducing by an order of magnitude. “Literal” is used because the phrase is often used in a hyperbolic sense. I was specifically referring to the difference between the Shuttle/SLS and Falcon 9.
dnhs47 t1_jd0ner5 wrote
A (small) cubesat that carries several small (packed) sails like this that can be attached to existing space debris would be very useful.
Some investment in cleaning up space is warranted. I grew up in the 1960s, watching the US response to Sputnik, then going to the moon. All kinds of junk was left in space from the first several decades with no consideration of deorbiting. Just as we used to think we could dump an infinite amount of junk in the sea and atmosphere and it would never matter. Oops.
Mackie_Macheath t1_jd2lbb7 wrote
But connecting those chutes to old satellites/existing space debris can be a huge challenge. It's already challenging when both units are under full control and can communicate with each other. When the rogue object is moving without control it can be rotating in any direction.
NinjaMoreLikeANonja t1_jd590gl wrote
100% correct. Think about it like this- two objects are in orbit around the Earth, each moving at 17,000+ miles per hour depending on how high the orbit is, and those two objects must touch. In the worst case velocity scenario, the two objects are counter-rotating in the same orbit so closing speed is 34,000+ mph. In the worst case positioning scenario, one object is orbiting along the Equator, and the other is orbiting over the Poles. The two satellites must hit one another- without destroying either satellite- at one particular point in space. Not. Gonna. Happen. The amount of propellant required to make that kind of shift would be greater than the mass of both satellites combined. Cool in theory, and maybe possible one day if there are a shitload of janitor satellites up in a bunch of orbits around the Earth, but extraordinarily hard to do in practice.
[deleted] t1_jd3n8kx wrote
[removed]
NinjaMoreLikeANonja t1_jd3ajvz wrote
Hey everyone! I’m Marco, the Chief Engineer from SBUDNIC. I’m legit shocked/delighted by the response here, and so I’ll be doing an AMA tonight at 6:30 EST. U/theantimosby will likely also be stopping by; he is one of SBUDNIC’s engineers. See you then!
NinjaMoreLikeANonja t1_jd579mb wrote
Okay let's do this! Ask away!
NinjaMoreLikeANonja t1_jd5dvr1 wrote
Moving this to r/IAmA. Find me there.
prion_death t1_jd1qigk wrote
Title needs “from accumulating” at the end. This does nothing for the existing pieces.
Defiant__Idea t1_jd30zli wrote
Not really. The bigger problem is that the number of objects launched into space is increasing very rapidly. Making sure that these will return to ground faster is the most important thing.
FuturologyBot t1_jcz352j wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/lughnasadh:
Submission Statement
We are used to anything space-based requiring massive engineering efforts and equally massive budgets.
This is interesting as it points to a future where cheap manufacturing could predominate. No doubt, there would still be a need for huge and complex engineering efforts, but if some useful space-based resources could be made this easy, wouldn't they quickly increase in number? Particularly as cheap reusable rockets predominate in the launch sector.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11wodb5/10_months_after_its_launch_by_spacex_a_10000/jcyxzmj/
[deleted] t1_jcz3jzm wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jd149i2 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jd2gak4 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_jd2hb25 wrote
[removed]
mrlittleoldmanboy t1_jd3f3gy wrote
We’ll here it until the day we die, but it’s insane that we brought men to the moon with computing power less than our phones
AutoModerator t1_jcyxx8j wrote
This appears to be a post about Elon Musk or one of his companies. Please keep discussion focused on the actual topic / technology and not praising / condemning Elon. Off topic flamewars will be removed and participants may be banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
JoshInWv t1_jd3awnf wrote
I think there missing a golden opportunity and are being short sighted. If they are truly going to clean up space junk, why not send it to the moon? That way when moon bases are being built, they will already have resources up there to work with instead of sending it back down to Earth? It would make sense to develop a plan to reuse those parts instead of letting them partially burn up on reentry, and shipping more materials to another planetary object. Just my $0.10. Am I missing something?
While the shuttle had the space arm, the shuttle fleet has been retired. I think we should be reuse as much of those components as we can.
-JIW
navit47 t1_jd0w216 wrote
Fuck, the companies worth billions of dollars and they still have to outsource their shit to a bunch of kids
OuidOuigi t1_jd2nau0 wrote
Like Reddit and mods?
Suolucidir t1_jcz19jr wrote
It is testing the deployable yellow drag net material pictured at the bottom of the device.
Compared with other small objects released during the same mission, this object is set to re-enter Earth's atmosphere about 5x faster(5 years instead of 25 years) due to that lightweight yellow drag material.
It won't remove any other space junk with it, but it is testing the idea that we can use cheap drag net material to more quickly return space junk to earth.