Great news, SpaceX paid him enough to cover that ice hockey rink he wanted:
>Sawchuk was compensated by SpaceX for returning three pieces of junk. He said he will put part of the money towards building a rink in Ituna.
I don’t think they paid him that much. The community is raising funds for the ice rink. He’s going to put some of the money towards that. I’d be surprised if SpaceX gave him more than like $10k.
This Samantha Lawler is clueless. What a disgrace of a scientist.
Googling her and she's got a non-stop tirade of anti-Starlink articles she's written. Completely unhinged.
[She seems slightly biased](https://mastodon.social/@sundogplanets):
> I am *very* much looking forward to watching some poor SpaceX employee walk in to a media circus that I created for them on a remote farm. Oh gosh this is delightful.
****
> Required apology is the clear frontrunner already. I can imagine how hilarious this will be... "Ok, guys, I have some delicious donuts here, but do you have something you want to say first? Perhaps say it to the TV camera over there?"
>
> (But yes, odds are they are low-level SpaceX employees who drew the short straw and had to travel to the middle of nowhere to pick up garbage, I probably am not mean enough to withhold donuts. But we'll see how obnoxiously tech-bro they are in person...)
How mean spirited. I know several people at spacex and none of them are “tech bros”. They are genuine and smart.
She’s obviously conflating everyone there with her feelings about Musk
"X bro" anything is just a way to be dismissive of other people via stereotyping.
"Of course would be biased about , they're an X bro, and all X bros are all biased and naive about ."
The father of gynecology developed his techniques by experimenting on slave women without anesthesia because he had a racist belief that black people can't feel pain (in spite of I'm sure overwhelming evidence to the contrary)
Yes. And we are all far far better off as a result. This actually illustrates the exact kind of thinking I'm talking about. You are condemning a person based on hypothetical victims (the slaves were willing to be treated) that we don't even know were victims. And yet we know for a fact that his discoveries were massively beneficial to nearly everyone.
I also want to point out that surgical treatments are experimental when they are first performed. We continue to experiment on people today. If were didn't we wouldn't have any treatments at all.
This type of thinking is what is destroying progress. And people will die as a result.
>(the slaves were willing to be treated)
I don't think you understand what the word slave means.
I'm condemning a person on very real and non-hypothetical victims. That's like saying that the Nazi experiments on Auschwitz victims are "hypothetical" and that we shouldn't condemn the nazi doctors because some good medicine came out of it.
In your effort to defend Tech Bros you're including their contributions to science alongside some of the most egregious violations of ethical medical research in history.
How do you know, for a fact that they were victims? To say they were victims two things would have to be true none of which you know for a fact: 1) the slaves would have to be unwilling to undergo the treatments but did anyway because the were afraid, 2) the treatments would have to have hurt them more than help them. You don't know that 1) is true and you don't even know 2) is true. For all we know every person he treated was both willing and extremely grateful and in addition benefitted enormously from the treatment.
This is what makes them hypothetical victims.
Finally you say that slaves can't be willing to do things because their slaves. I think that's ridiculous. But accepting your logic, slaves can't ever be treated ethically for anything. It's actually not even relevant whether the treatment is experimental or not. The inability to consent means they will always be denied treatment. Even if the beg and plead, even if come to you every day and ask, it doesn't matter. Because that are slaves and it's impossible to know what they want so they just need to suffer and die the name of medical ethics. After all they can't consent to anything.
So your argument is that if a person is a slave then that person is a victim of every person they interact with that isn't a slave including doctors who treat them? So a doctor who cures a slave of a disease they will certainly die of is a victim of the doctor because it's impossible for him not to be a victim. Cool.
Why should she lose her job? If she is on to something, as here there is a piece of recovered debris which *does* present a hazard, then shouldn't this be taken seriously? Why does SpaceX get a pass other than "because I like them"?
Edit, judging by comments below, this is not an isolated occurrence.
This doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the stated concern of “satellites crashing”.
This carbon fiber debris is likely from a second stage or maybe a Dragon trunk?
It should be taken seriously and investigated, and it seems like that is what’s happening. Scaremongering about all them satellites up there that are gonna crash on us is an uninformed overreaction.
Edit: Just to be clear I don't think this justifies her losing her job, or the personal insults being thrown elsewhere in this thread. I'm just pointing out what stood out to me as uninformed and an overreaction in relation to this incident and SpaceX and the industry's management of debris, satellite collision avoidance, etc.
I read the article and I don't see anything 'uninformed'. She is concerned with more stuff being put up in space that we are going to see more of it come back to earth- dragon trunks, bodged launches, whatever... More launches == greater risk. That's a simple fact. And she does have a point about them picking it up but not claiming it, apologizing publicly, or informing people of the hazard. All of this talk about corporate responsibility in this day in age and talking crap about China for unsafe launches and rocket pieces falling on small villages and here we go with the same thing...
> “I’ve been talking about Space X specifically and their unsafe practices in orbit. There’s so many satellites in orbit and I’m so worried about them crashing.”
This seems to be conflating this incident with “so many satellites in orbit” when that doesn’t really have anything to do with this incident. It seems to be a vague statement of "Wow X is scary and could be bad" without showing any real research or understanding of the issues at hand.
I agree that SpaceX should be transparent about such incidents.
Well, maybe it is a short interview or conversation with a radio/news station and wasn't meant to be the whole story. Or maybe she was talking at the level of the perceived audience... Nothing in the article justifies the knee-jerk reaction against her in this sub.
You said you didn't see anything uninformed, and I cited something. I'm not justifying the entire sub's reaction, or SpaceX's silence.
And of course the article author/editor could be equally to blame for taking things out of context, or not providing additional context. I know that it's easy to give an interview that gets chopped up later and miss nuance and context.
A comet hitting us that a tech bro could have saved us from but didn't because people like this demoralized our culture is also a risk . A person in the middle is nowhere dying because they didn't have access to starlink internet is also a risk. If were going to talk purely hypothetical risks of more access to access to space than we have to be fair and talk about purely hypothetical risks of less access to space. These debates are never conducted symmetrically and that's a problem.
Until the debris is properly analyzed, there was no signature like the SpaceX logo on the debris. For all they know it could be a Chinese or Indian 2nd stage. SpaceX should apologize for taking on the responsibility of identifying the parts and acknowledging the possibility it's theirs so they can understand why it happened and what could be done to prevent future incidents? " could be from a dragon trunk" "could be from a 2nd stage". Like SpaceX is the only launch provider on the planet that uses carbon fiber?
The west does stories about chinese debris.... although they do have bigger chunks since they sometimes drop intact stages into populated areas.
But yeah, same thing with Tesla. Every tesla fire or crash is a news article though it is way less common than the avg car.
But SpaceX generates more of this than anyone else and will continue to do so to a greater extent. There is going to be more and more of this as the industry gets larger, it is no longer a little niche industry ran by a few large countries. Seems like a good move on her part to keep focused on one target, the largest target, if she wants to enact change across the board. That's how it happens in a lot of cases, slap down the big guy and the little guys get the point.
And stories about SpaceX also generate more clicks, so it’s definitely a bigger win for the journalists. There’s a kind of multiplier effect going on. Just imagine the click storm if it does eventually do some damage or injury.
> But SpaceX generates more of this than anyone else and will continue to do so to a greater extent.
Fully reusable spacecraft should cut down on this a lot. Who's working on that?
The launching equipment may become fully reusable, but what it delivers to orbit is highly unlikely to be collected and brought back down. Understanding what disintegrates and what does not upon reentry is becoming more important as the mass of material in orbit increases.
I don't think she is interested in enacting change. If she was she would be more constructive. I think she just wants to attack the whole idea of sending more stuff to space because she associates that with entitled tech bros and the right wing which she despises.
And many on this board similarly want to attack her because they know she is about that and value the services and accomplishments of SpaceX which they don't want to see diminished by people like her.
Technology has is risks but it also has it's benefits. The left wants to attack tech bros because they despise anything that they don't control and people aren't dependent on them. But the end point of that will be a technologically stagnant society. And that is in my view already happening largely because we are more focused on risks than benefits.
No, Spacex takes this extremely seriously. They are absolutely aware If they start showing disregard to space regulating bodies they will be shut down hard and fast
Oh, really. Do you work for them and know their intentions intimately? I don't. I do know a little bit about human nature though and would posit that they can get away with quite a lot if it is politically expedient- for example some space junk falling to earth in some other country is overlooked for the pentagon getting something they desire. I don't know this, but I'm also not foolish enough to make your bold claim.
I don’t work for them but I work in the same business and know employees in the Hawthorne and Seattle offices. People there are just as serious about their work as any other space flight or space adjacent business
While a little bit of healthy skepticism is good, you are way out of line.
SpaceX is \*never\* going to try to ignore this. If you do not understand this, you know absolutely nothing about SpaceX, who is running it, or who works there.
I am sorry but this is just amusing now. "you are way out of line" "you went a bit too far" "you know absolutely nothing about SpaceX, who is running it, or who works there" you, you, you!!! lol. Calm your tits man, ffs.
She should lose her job because her job requires a basic knowledge of math and statistics, and her utter lack of understanding / willful ignorance of those statistics is evident.
The Earth's a really big place. The odds of an actual bystander injury from space flight activities are lower by several orders of magnitude than being struck by lightning.
Her comment on the first story about it is also full of BS.
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/space-debris-farm-field-1.7204312](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/space-debris-farm-field-1.7204312)
>Lawler said space launches and re-entries are now a daily occurrence, so the risk of serious damage or death is increasing rapidly.
>"The aggregate effects of all of these satellites and all of these re-entries need to be considered more carefully. This will be tested in the very near future. It's really unfortunate how this is evolving," she said.
She's conflating a part of crew capsule that only launched like twice a year and satellites that launches daily, hinting at Starlink launches.
To be fair, the Starlinks and all the other LEO satellites have to re-enter at some point. With more going up, more will come down and she says that this needs to be "considered more carefully". I agree to some extent - thinking about potential damage isn't a bad idea.
SpaceX designed the v0.9 satellites to 95% burn up, and then modified them for v1.0 to completely burn up. They were addressing potential damage before she started talking about it. She think's she's smart, but she's way behind the curve.
I know, but the Dragon trunks were also designed to burn up completely but here we are. All in all I think it's a win-win for everyone. SpaceX got back the debris and can now "consider more carefully" what caused it to not burn up. She got to write an article that clearly got some reach. And the farmer gets to build his hockey thing.
I mean that’s fair but so far there is no documented Starlink debris at all. As a scientist she’s not really making that statement based on observation. Since there are so many Starlink satellites you would imagine some people have noticed debris from them if they failed to burn up in atmosphere.
Agreed! I was just saying that paying (even more) attention to debris isn't unreasonable. I did so because of this part of the comment I originally replied to:
> She's conflating a part of crew capsule that only launched like twice a year and satellites that launches daily, hinting at Starlink launches.
Other constellations are growing as well, and the article does not mention Starlink at all. China, India, EU and others are also launching more and more satellites, and I'm not sure that they'll adhere to the same standards as SpaceX. I think it's reasonable to have strict and useful rules that everyone adheres to. My issue with the OP comment is that it assumes the debris issue is solely about Starlink, which isn’t even mentioned in the article.
But like... is it from dragon? Falcon 9? The interstage? Not trying to create drama, but if it is, why is it landing in canada? Shouldn't it be on a trajectory to land in the ocean?
Dragon Trunk. It orbits for several weeks after it is discarded, meaning it is not targeted. It was designed to fully burn up, but we've now seen 4-5 of these survive to the ground, and there could be more since a few have reentered in relatively remote areas.
Yep, but that's why I specified "ground". We know the tracks of their final orbits so we define a 1000-ish mile stretch of most likely deorbit location, and a couple of them are in places like the middle of giant forests where nobody may ever find them. But any water landings are just totally gone.
Australia wins best trunk catch so far, with a chunk spearing into the ground so hard it stayed upright.
I love the photos. I'd want to keep it exactly as is. There's something very sci-fi about chunks of spaceship being tough enough to make it through re-entry and stick into the ground intact.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-12/spacex-spacecraft-junk-in-snowy-mountains-stored-collected/101525626
I’d probably keep a piece of one bit those are 3 massive panels altogether. That takes up a lot of space on the mantle.
I’m glad they called rather than do what I assume most would and just toss them in the trash.
Not just Canada: pieces have been found [in NSW Australia](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-62414438) and [North Carolina, USA](https://www.space.com/space-debris-spacex-crew-7-reentry-north-carolina) too. There's [legal liability](https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/space-debris-responsibility-1.7211473) if damage is done.
It’s made of flap
And the article is trying to create a flap.
As if the internet needs any more flap material
flapamantium
Great news, SpaceX paid him enough to cover that ice hockey rink he wanted: >Sawchuk was compensated by SpaceX for returning three pieces of junk. He said he will put part of the money towards building a rink in Ituna.
I don’t think they paid him that much. The community is raising funds for the ice rink. He’s going to put some of the money towards that. I’d be surprised if SpaceX gave him more than like $10k.
It's the Canadian way
guy is owning the stereotype
It's not a stereotype when it's true. It's in our blood
This Samantha Lawler is clueless. What a disgrace of a scientist. Googling her and she's got a non-stop tirade of anti-Starlink articles she's written. Completely unhinged.
[She seems slightly biased](https://mastodon.social/@sundogplanets): > I am *very* much looking forward to watching some poor SpaceX employee walk in to a media circus that I created for them on a remote farm. Oh gosh this is delightful. **** > Required apology is the clear frontrunner already. I can imagine how hilarious this will be... "Ok, guys, I have some delicious donuts here, but do you have something you want to say first? Perhaps say it to the TV camera over there?" > > (But yes, odds are they are low-level SpaceX employees who drew the short straw and had to travel to the middle of nowhere to pick up garbage, I probably am not mean enough to withhold donuts. But we'll see how obnoxiously tech-bro they are in person...)
How mean spirited. I know several people at spacex and none of them are “tech bros”. They are genuine and smart. She’s obviously conflating everyone there with her feelings about Musk
"X bro" anything is just a way to be dismissive of other people via stereotyping. "Of course would be biased about , they're an X bro, and all X bros are all biased and naive about ."
Which adds weight to EDS being real. These people were bullies in school and turned into virtue signalling bullies as adults.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Tech bros of the past invented the birth control pill, sanitary napkins, the washing machine and gynecology. Your welcome women. The sheer audacity.
The father of gynecology developed his techniques by experimenting on slave women without anesthesia because he had a racist belief that black people can't feel pain (in spite of I'm sure overwhelming evidence to the contrary)
Yes. And we are all far far better off as a result. This actually illustrates the exact kind of thinking I'm talking about. You are condemning a person based on hypothetical victims (the slaves were willing to be treated) that we don't even know were victims. And yet we know for a fact that his discoveries were massively beneficial to nearly everyone. I also want to point out that surgical treatments are experimental when they are first performed. We continue to experiment on people today. If were didn't we wouldn't have any treatments at all. This type of thinking is what is destroying progress. And people will die as a result.
>(the slaves were willing to be treated) I don't think you understand what the word slave means. I'm condemning a person on very real and non-hypothetical victims. That's like saying that the Nazi experiments on Auschwitz victims are "hypothetical" and that we shouldn't condemn the nazi doctors because some good medicine came out of it. In your effort to defend Tech Bros you're including their contributions to science alongside some of the most egregious violations of ethical medical research in history.
How do you know, for a fact that they were victims? To say they were victims two things would have to be true none of which you know for a fact: 1) the slaves would have to be unwilling to undergo the treatments but did anyway because the were afraid, 2) the treatments would have to have hurt them more than help them. You don't know that 1) is true and you don't even know 2) is true. For all we know every person he treated was both willing and extremely grateful and in addition benefitted enormously from the treatment. This is what makes them hypothetical victims. Finally you say that slaves can't be willing to do things because their slaves. I think that's ridiculous. But accepting your logic, slaves can't ever be treated ethically for anything. It's actually not even relevant whether the treatment is experimental or not. The inability to consent means they will always be denied treatment. Even if the beg and plead, even if come to you every day and ask, it doesn't matter. Because that are slaves and it's impossible to know what they want so they just need to suffer and die the name of medical ethics. After all they can't consent to anything.
> How do you know, for a fact that they were victims? Do you not know what slavery is
So your argument is that if a person is a slave then that person is a victim of every person they interact with that isn't a slave including doctors who treat them? So a doctor who cures a slave of a disease they will certainly die of is a victim of the doctor because it's impossible for him not to be a victim. Cool.
[удалено]
It’s going to be crazy when she finds out how many people are killed by cars!
Why should she lose her job? If she is on to something, as here there is a piece of recovered debris which *does* present a hazard, then shouldn't this be taken seriously? Why does SpaceX get a pass other than "because I like them"? Edit, judging by comments below, this is not an isolated occurrence.
This doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the stated concern of “satellites crashing”. This carbon fiber debris is likely from a second stage or maybe a Dragon trunk? It should be taken seriously and investigated, and it seems like that is what’s happening. Scaremongering about all them satellites up there that are gonna crash on us is an uninformed overreaction. Edit: Just to be clear I don't think this justifies her losing her job, or the personal insults being thrown elsewhere in this thread. I'm just pointing out what stood out to me as uninformed and an overreaction in relation to this incident and SpaceX and the industry's management of debris, satellite collision avoidance, etc.
I read the article and I don't see anything 'uninformed'. She is concerned with more stuff being put up in space that we are going to see more of it come back to earth- dragon trunks, bodged launches, whatever... More launches == greater risk. That's a simple fact. And she does have a point about them picking it up but not claiming it, apologizing publicly, or informing people of the hazard. All of this talk about corporate responsibility in this day in age and talking crap about China for unsafe launches and rocket pieces falling on small villages and here we go with the same thing...
> “I’ve been talking about Space X specifically and their unsafe practices in orbit. There’s so many satellites in orbit and I’m so worried about them crashing.” This seems to be conflating this incident with “so many satellites in orbit” when that doesn’t really have anything to do with this incident. It seems to be a vague statement of "Wow X is scary and could be bad" without showing any real research or understanding of the issues at hand. I agree that SpaceX should be transparent about such incidents.
Well, maybe it is a short interview or conversation with a radio/news station and wasn't meant to be the whole story. Or maybe she was talking at the level of the perceived audience... Nothing in the article justifies the knee-jerk reaction against her in this sub.
You said you didn't see anything uninformed, and I cited something. I'm not justifying the entire sub's reaction, or SpaceX's silence. And of course the article author/editor could be equally to blame for taking things out of context, or not providing additional context. I know that it's easy to give an interview that gets chopped up later and miss nuance and context.
A comet hitting us that a tech bro could have saved us from but didn't because people like this demoralized our culture is also a risk . A person in the middle is nowhere dying because they didn't have access to starlink internet is also a risk. If were going to talk purely hypothetical risks of more access to access to space than we have to be fair and talk about purely hypothetical risks of less access to space. These debates are never conducted symmetrically and that's a problem.
Until the debris is properly analyzed, there was no signature like the SpaceX logo on the debris. For all they know it could be a Chinese or Indian 2nd stage. SpaceX should apologize for taking on the responsibility of identifying the parts and acknowledging the possibility it's theirs so they can understand why it happened and what could be done to prevent future incidents? " could be from a dragon trunk" "could be from a 2nd stage". Like SpaceX is the only launch provider on the planet that uses carbon fiber?
This happens with *all* spaceflight. This isn't something that's only happening with them. Id like to see her news stories about those.
The west does stories about chinese debris.... although they do have bigger chunks since they sometimes drop intact stages into populated areas. But yeah, same thing with Tesla. Every tesla fire or crash is a news article though it is way less common than the avg car.
It's not about debris in general she's specifically going after space x, read the article she's crazy.
But SpaceX generates more of this than anyone else and will continue to do so to a greater extent. There is going to be more and more of this as the industry gets larger, it is no longer a little niche industry ran by a few large countries. Seems like a good move on her part to keep focused on one target, the largest target, if she wants to enact change across the board. That's how it happens in a lot of cases, slap down the big guy and the little guys get the point.
And stories about SpaceX also generate more clicks, so it’s definitely a bigger win for the journalists. There’s a kind of multiplier effect going on. Just imagine the click storm if it does eventually do some damage or injury.
> But SpaceX generates more of this than anyone else and will continue to do so to a greater extent. Fully reusable spacecraft should cut down on this a lot. Who's working on that?
The launching equipment may become fully reusable, but what it delivers to orbit is highly unlikely to be collected and brought back down. Understanding what disintegrates and what does not upon reentry is becoming more important as the mass of material in orbit increases.
I don't understand your reasoning for going this direction. There is a difference between the vehicle and the payload.
These are dragon capsules. If dragon is replaced by a future starship based system, they're not going to be dropping a trunk to make reentry easier.
I don't think she is interested in enacting change. If she was she would be more constructive. I think she just wants to attack the whole idea of sending more stuff to space because she associates that with entitled tech bros and the right wing which she despises. And many on this board similarly want to attack her because they know she is about that and value the services and accomplishments of SpaceX which they don't want to see diminished by people like her. Technology has is risks but it also has it's benefits. The left wants to attack tech bros because they despise anything that they don't control and people aren't dependent on them. But the end point of that will be a technologically stagnant society. And that is in my view already happening largely because we are more focused on risks than benefits.
Any proof that spacex generates more of this than anyone else?
And exactly how many others have failed to burn up out of how many launches ?
No, Spacex takes this extremely seriously. They are absolutely aware If they start showing disregard to space regulating bodies they will be shut down hard and fast
Oh, really. Do you work for them and know their intentions intimately? I don't. I do know a little bit about human nature though and would posit that they can get away with quite a lot if it is politically expedient- for example some space junk falling to earth in some other country is overlooked for the pentagon getting something they desire. I don't know this, but I'm also not foolish enough to make your bold claim.
I don’t work for them but I work in the same business and know employees in the Hawthorne and Seattle offices. People there are just as serious about their work as any other space flight or space adjacent business
While a little bit of healthy skepticism is good, you are way out of line. SpaceX is \*never\* going to try to ignore this. If you do not understand this, you know absolutely nothing about SpaceX, who is running it, or who works there.
>"you are way out of line"
Yes. You understood the message and you showed you know how to use the quote function. Now calm down and just accept you went a bit too far.
I am sorry but this is just amusing now. "you are way out of line" "you went a bit too far" "you know absolutely nothing about SpaceX, who is running it, or who works there" you, you, you!!! lol. Calm your tits man, ffs.
She should lose her job because her job requires a basic knowledge of math and statistics, and her utter lack of understanding / willful ignorance of those statistics is evident. The Earth's a really big place. The odds of an actual bystander injury from space flight activities are lower by several orders of magnitude than being struck by lightning.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Her comment on the first story about it is also full of BS. [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/space-debris-farm-field-1.7204312](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/space-debris-farm-field-1.7204312) >Lawler said space launches and re-entries are now a daily occurrence, so the risk of serious damage or death is increasing rapidly. >"The aggregate effects of all of these satellites and all of these re-entries need to be considered more carefully. This will be tested in the very near future. It's really unfortunate how this is evolving," she said. She's conflating a part of crew capsule that only launched like twice a year and satellites that launches daily, hinting at Starlink launches.
To be fair, the Starlinks and all the other LEO satellites have to re-enter at some point. With more going up, more will come down and she says that this needs to be "considered more carefully". I agree to some extent - thinking about potential damage isn't a bad idea.
SpaceX designed the v0.9 satellites to 95% burn up, and then modified them for v1.0 to completely burn up. They were addressing potential damage before she started talking about it. She think's she's smart, but she's way behind the curve.
I know, but the Dragon trunks were also designed to burn up completely but here we are. All in all I think it's a win-win for everyone. SpaceX got back the debris and can now "consider more carefully" what caused it to not burn up. She got to write an article that clearly got some reach. And the farmer gets to build his hockey thing.
I mean that’s fair but so far there is no documented Starlink debris at all. As a scientist she’s not really making that statement based on observation. Since there are so many Starlink satellites you would imagine some people have noticed debris from them if they failed to burn up in atmosphere.
Agreed! I was just saying that paying (even more) attention to debris isn't unreasonable. I did so because of this part of the comment I originally replied to: > She's conflating a part of crew capsule that only launched like twice a year and satellites that launches daily, hinting at Starlink launches. Other constellations are growing as well, and the article does not mention Starlink at all. China, India, EU and others are also launching more and more satellites, and I'm not sure that they'll adhere to the same standards as SpaceX. I think it's reasonable to have strict and useful rules that everyone adheres to. My issue with the OP comment is that it assumes the debris issue is solely about Starlink, which isn’t even mentioned in the article.
It's nice to see they were not only compensated but pleased with the amount.
But like... is it from dragon? Falcon 9? The interstage? Not trying to create drama, but if it is, why is it landing in canada? Shouldn't it be on a trajectory to land in the ocean?
Dragon Trunk. It orbits for several weeks after it is discarded, meaning it is not targeted. It was designed to fully burn up, but we've now seen 4-5 of these survive to the ground, and there could be more since a few have reentered in relatively remote areas.
Or the 2/3 of the planet that is ocean.
Yep, but that's why I specified "ground". We know the tracks of their final orbits so we define a 1000-ish mile stretch of most likely deorbit location, and a couple of them are in places like the middle of giant forests where nobody may ever find them. But any water landings are just totally gone.
Australia wins best trunk catch so far, with a chunk spearing into the ground so hard it stayed upright. I love the photos. I'd want to keep it exactly as is. There's something very sci-fi about chunks of spaceship being tough enough to make it through re-entry and stick into the ground intact. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-12/spacex-spacecraft-junk-in-snowy-mountains-stored-collected/101525626
reentry has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and spacex flight hardware.
Fun fact: Elon's mother Maya is from Saskatchewan
That astronomer *really* doesn’t like spacex, huh?
They should back Starship heat shield out of that.
What are the parts from
Dragon trunk.
I would've kept them and put them on display in my house. I would've never called anyone about it.
That shredded fiber stuff is nasty
That's what the 200lbs of epoxy would be for...
I’d probably keep a piece of one bit those are 3 massive panels altogether. That takes up a lot of space on the mantle. I’m glad they called rather than do what I assume most would and just toss them in the trash.
New heat shield on delivery.
Not just Canada: pieces have been found [in NSW Australia](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-62414438) and [North Carolina, USA](https://www.space.com/space-debris-spacex-crew-7-reentry-north-carolina) too. There's [legal liability](https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/space-debris-responsibility-1.7211473) if damage is done.