Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Joates87 t1_jczwr3p wrote

Without reading too much into it it sounds like a low cost way to increase space junk...

But. Isn't the trip the more expensive part anyways?

Edit: so if we read the article does it change our understanding of the meaning of the word "reduce"?

47

The_Red_Grin_Grumble t1_jd096gv wrote

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

l4mbch0ps t1_jd0ez3v wrote

"Without reading the article, I'll just pull some shit out of my ass."

16

DukeOfGeek OP t1_jd0otmf wrote

I even posted the relevant article parts in comments. And bolded. Horse water etc etc.

7

bobgusford t1_jd15c5x wrote

Where did you post these "relevant article parts"? I only see a title that leaves the door wide open for misinterpretation.

3

sfgisz t1_jd1hg4j wrote

Don't blame the users for that - Reddit decides whether you're a top comment or not, and in this case it decided yours isn't, so people can't easily see your summary.

2

Joates87 t1_jd0kc5w wrote

When has cheaper ways to get shit into space not lead to more shit floating around in space?

I'll wait.

−8

l4mbch0ps t1_jd0nhdi wrote

You still haven't read the article, have you? I'll also wait.

4

CovertLeopard t1_jczyxt8 wrote

Student launches space junk to reduce space junk.

6

drop_database_run t1_jd0r1zh wrote

They're testing the tech to reduce space junk, if it works cube says (generally considered disposable) won't spend 30 years in orbit. Yes it will be space junk, but it is a test that will mitigate space junk in the future.

Ex. Sat A has a life expectancy of three years, it will be in orbit for 25-30 years. Sat B also has a life expectancy of three years but will only be in orbit for 5 years.

If these satellites are replaced on schedule, there will be 10 Model A in orbit with one functioning verse 2 (maybe 3) model B in orbit at any given point over the same time frame

9

Joates87 t1_jd4yw8i wrote

We get it, the title just kinda lies.

Reducing space junk implies the removal or elimination of the already existing problem.

1

drop_database_run t1_jd4zciz wrote

That space junk will eventually eliminate itself, this does eliminate space junk faster as in my example above it does mitigate the total amount of stuff in orbit. It isn't wrong, it's just not right in the way you were hoping. Short of making a space garbage truck this is the way forward

1

nemom t1_jczrkrs wrote

> ...shows a low-cost way to reduce space junk

by becoming space junk.

1

malepitt t1_jczsmwf wrote

...by equipping their craft with a drag sail, deliberately designed to speed orbital decay. [Reading- how does it work?]

18

OneFutureOfMany t1_jd04fvb wrote

That has nothing to do with AA batteries.

Why spend $10k to launch a satellite who’s batteries (Energizer?) will die and leave it orbiting uselessly for 4.5 years?

But yeah a drag sail can reduce time in orbit.

I’m glad some students are getting some experience designing and launching satellites. It’ll be a major step for their careers.

4

nemom t1_jczyyr9 wrote

Sure, it proves you can shorten the time something is space junk by increasing its drag, but A) the engineers already knew that and 2) that does not mean it won't be space junk for the next five years.

−1

mailslot t1_jd0x4qq wrote

And if it doesn’t deploy: space junk

−4

DukeOfGeek OP t1_jczshku wrote

Tell us you didn't read the article without saying you didn't read the article.

4

nemom t1_jczyqqq wrote

I did read the article. It will orbit the planet for five years. The batteries will run out long before that, so it will be space junk most of its life. Yes, they are showing how increasing drag can shorten the time something is space junk, but it is still going to be space junk.

10

Stupid-Idiot-Balls t1_jd3ax9x wrote

Short lived space junk is not the problem and is never what astronomer/engineers talk about when they say space junk is a problem.

3

nemom t1_jd3d1ky wrote

Ah, yes... How many times have I heard an astronomer say, "Damn it! A satellite passed in front of my sensor. Oh, wait... The catalog says it's gonna burn up in three years, not seventeen, so it's OK."?

0

WholemealBred t1_jczt6ee wrote

Tell us how that didn’t just create more space junk… it’s r/technicallythetruth

1

timberwolf0122 t1_jd0wxce wrote

The cube is a proof of concept, we now know that a drag sail is highly effective as well as light and cheap, reducing junks life 6 fold and that’s huge.

7

WholemealBred t1_jd9tjpc wrote

But that’s not happened yet. It’s just more junk at this stage.

1

timberwolf0122 t1_jda2tee wrote

Not if they are continuing to monitor it, which I imagine they will to see how long the deorbit takes, it’ll become junk once it begins to burn up

1

WholemealBred t1_jda3vlp wrote

Just because it will head towards reentry with 5 years instead of 25 years doesn’t mean it’s not space junk. it’s still space junk….

1

timberwolf0122 t1_jda49ab wrote

Right…. And they will likely monitor its trajectory over the next 5 years to see how the cube and tiny drag chute behave, this would make it an active experiment.

If something happens and that cube starts gaining altitude because of an unforeseen interaction, we’ll that’s something you want to know about before you put it on something big and have it go sailing off somewhere

1

WholemealBred t1_jda58eg wrote

You realise it’s based of projections and not monitored for 5 years? RemindMe! 5 years

1

Who_GNU t1_jd02g6p wrote

In my experience, at least one of those AA batteries will start leaking in no time.

−2

noobgolang t1_jd1l72d wrote

Who the fuck write this article

−3

Uncertn_Laaife t1_jd1ykud wrote

Coming to a dollar-store near you - all the space junk you could fucking buy.

−3