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

by becoming space junk.

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

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

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

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"?

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.

Student launches space junk to reduce space junk.

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.

[removed]

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

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.

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.

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

It decreases the lifespan of future spacejunk.

Will bring it down, out of space

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

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

I'll wait.

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

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

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

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.

And if it doesn’t deploy: space junk

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

So it makes more earth junk

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.

Who the fuck write this article

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

Mass is neither created nor destroyed

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

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.

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

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

Yes it is, just tiny amounts.

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."?

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.

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

We get it, the title just kinda lies.

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

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

[removed]

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

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

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….

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

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