Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

The_Red_Grin_Grumble t1_jd096gv wrote

Reply to comment by Joates87 in Student built satellite launched by SpaceX and powered by 48 AA batteries and a $20 microprocessor shows a low-cost way to reduce space junk by DukeOfGeek

Clearly, without reading too much. The satellite was testing a cheap, light weight mechanism to bring satellites out of orbit sooner.

This particular satellite, due to the drag sail that opened after getting into orbit, will bring it down within 5 years as opposed to the 25-27 years without one.

27

Joates87 t1_jd09ydj wrote

A semantical stretch to say this "reduces" space junk.

It decreases the lifespan of future spacejunk.

2

Not-another-rando t1_jd0ewkb wrote

Will bring it down, out of space

20

Badtrainwreck t1_jd1c2cn wrote

So it makes more earth junk

−7

thunderyoats t1_jd1l820 wrote

I assume it burns up in the atmosphere (hopefully).

1

UncleFukus t1_jd1sxc2 wrote

Mass is neither created nor destroyed

2

TeaKingMac t1_jd41m0k wrote

Only in specific circumstances. From Wikipedia on conservation of matter

> In reality, the conservation of mass only holds approximately and is considered part of a series of assumptions in classical mechanics. The law has to be modified to comply with the laws of quantum mechanics and special relativity under the principle of mass-energy equivalence, which states that energy and mass form one conserved quantity. For very energetic systems the conservation of mass only is shown not to hold, as is the case in nuclear reactions and particle-antiparticle annihilation in particle physics.

> Mass is also not generally conserved in open systems. Such is the case when various forms of energy and matter are allowed into, or out of, the system. However, unless radioactivity or nuclear reactions are involved, the amount of energy escaping (or entering) such systems as heat, mechanical work, or electromagnetic radiation is usually too small to be measured as a decrease (or increase) in the mass of the system.

2

UncleFukus t1_jd4kawp wrote

So per the greater context, satellites burning up in the atmosphere still uphold conversation of mass as no nuclear reactions are involved?

0

bacon_boat t1_jd26bag wrote

Yeah, when I clean my kitchen I'm not "reducing" the amount of waste.

I'm just decreasing the lifetime of the junk in my kitchen.

The consequence that reducing junk lifetime reduces the amount of junk is just incidental and can be ignored.

3

Joates87 t1_jd2sx2j wrote

Bad analogy but its okay.

More like making a rube Goldberg machine in your kitchen in which everything slowly makes its way towards the trashcan.

So somehow making this rube Goldberg machine you would argue actually reduces clutter in your kitchen. Yeah. Okay bud.

Edit: tell your SO you are going to "reduce" the number of dishes in the sink by throwing biodegradable cutlery in the sink... see how that works lol

−4