Slashdot Mirror


China Confirms Its Space Station Is Falling Back to Earth (popularmechanics.com)

The Tiangong-1, China's prototype space station which was launched in September 2011, is no longer under the control of China. PopularMechanics reports: China's Tiangong-1 space station has been orbiting the planet for about 5 years now, but recently it was decommissioned and the Chinese astronauts returned to the surface. In a press conference, China announced that the space station would be falling back to earth at some point in late 2017. Normally, a decommissioned satellite or space station would be retired by forcing it to burn up in the atmosphere. This type of burn is controlled, and most satellite re-entries are scheduled to burn up over the ocean to avoid endangering people. However, it seems that China's space agency is not sure exactly when Tiangong-1 will re-enter the atmosphere, which implies that the station has been damaged somehow and China is no longer able to control it. This is important because it means Tiangong-1 won't be able to burn up in a controlled manner. All we know is it will burn up at some point in late 2017, but it is impossible to predict exactly when or where. This means that there is a chance debris from the falling spacecraft could strike a populated area.

160 of 275 comments (clear)

  1. This is my shocked face by redmid17 · · Score: 1, Funny

    https://cdn.meme.am/instances/...

    Well done China. Well done.

    1. Re:This is my shocked face by execthis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No my guess is its deliberate. The low risk was deemed acceptable and they can save money. They don't want to spend money to prevent whatever remote odds it may kill or injure anyone on Earth. That's their attitude.

      Would be nice if it crashed in downtown Beijing.

    2. Re:This is my shocked face by msauve · · Score: 2

      "Would be nice if it crashed in downtown Beijing."

      No. Hopefully in the middle of the ocean, someplace like Fiery Cross Reef.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:This is my shocked face by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      They only export that stuff to the U.S., the stuff they keep for themselves is fine.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    4. Re:This is my shocked face by Immerman · · Score: 4, Funny

      We assure you that it' a complete coincidence that it's on a collision course with Washington D.C. Our most humble apologies for any inconvenience...

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:This is my shocked face by CrankyFool · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've seen no evidence that China is incapable of producing high-quality stuff. Thing is, US companies going to China for manufacturing aren't deciding to go to China because the US can't build stuff that's high quality enough -- they're going there to save money. So they go to China and ask for the cheapest something can be manufactured and they get ... the cheapest manufactured stuff. If those companies -- really, the people who own the quality of the products they're selling -- didn't like the quality of the product, they'd either negotiate better quality (and higher price) with their Chinese manufacturers or they'd move their manufacturing to someone who can do a better job. They don't. Why? Because that's exactly how they like it.

    6. Re:This is my shocked face by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      They only export that stuff to the U.S., the stuff they keep for themselves is fine.

      So they're exporting this space station to the US, then?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    7. Re:This is my shocked face by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      Many from the right-wing fringe actually believe that, even though the Chinese are far and away the greatest victims of inferior and contaminated Chinese goods.

      I hope you're joking, but... Poe's law and all.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    8. Re:This is my shocked face by SumDog · · Score: 2

      You realize over 70% of the shit in your home is made in China right? Including things that have last over 5 and even 10 years.

    9. Re:This is my shocked face by Tim+the+Gecko · · Score: 3, Informative

      Skylab fell on my defenceless homeland. On News at Ten (ITN), Reginald Bosanquet, overcome with disbelief, read his autocue one line at a time. ‘Skylab broke up, with debris. Streaking across the night sky and heading. Thousands of miles across the. Ocean for Australia.’

      At least Reggie wasn’t entirely speechless. I’m bound to confess that I was, since until that point I had been an admirer of President Carter. But when they start strafing your own country with tons of red-hot supersonic junk you can’t help wondering whether there might not be some substance in all those theories about US imperialism.

      Clive James, 1979

    10. Re:This is my shocked face by spidey3 · · Score: 2

      It only takes a cursory review of the chinese economy to understand that government there definitely does not own "all the business". Having spent time in china, I can tell you that it is probably one of the most hyper-capitalistic societies that I have ever seen.

      What it doesn't have, that exists in the west, is a robust regulatory regime to prevent false advertising, dangerous products, etc.

    11. Re:This is my shocked face by balbeir · · Score: 1

      That depends on your definition of fine

    12. Re:This is my shocked face by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 4, Funny

      it's not deliberate, it's out of warranty. like everything chinese that's broken.

    13. Re:This is my shocked face by gmack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is exactly it. I find when I negotiate with Chinese companies that they tend to be very accommodating and they try to give me whatever I ask for. If you want a feature, they will add it. In fact, I once had a DSLAM company add protection circuit (protect against DC polarity reversal to avoid fireworks) to their equipment just for me along with some software changes. The trouble happens when you tell them you want it cheap. They will cut every corner and give you the cheapest piece of trash you've ever seen..

      Its the same with outsourcing: When you go cheap, you get all of the people who couldn't get jobs elsewhere.

    14. Re:This is my shocked face by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      So, in the US, business owns all of government.

      End result is depressingly similar.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    15. Re:This is my shocked face by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

      So they're exporting this space station to the US, then?

      ... to Washington DC?

      --
      ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    16. Re:This is my shocked face by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      dead wrong.

      in fact, this reminds me of an EEVBLOG post I read that addressed the rigol scope market (I think it was rigol) and that they made 2 scopes on a model # - one for non-china sales and one for china-only sales. the china-only one was really dangerous and underdesigned. lots of failures - total POS. the reason it was sold to china only is that its easier to sell shit to them and they can deal with the problems locally (not expensive to mail it back to the factory, etc). if I mailed a bad scope from the US to china, it would cost half of the value of the scope, itself.

      china does not keep the 'better stuff' to its own people. its the exact opposite, in fact. china has more people than they need and care nothing for human life. individuals are not respected, the 'whole' is the only thing that matters to their culture. quite backward from how I grew up (in the US) and this divide is one major difference between us that I can't see ever changing.

      china educated engineers also tend not to be very creative and also generally not very good (sorry if the truth hurts).

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    17. Re:This is my shocked face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Would be nice if it crashed in downtown Beijing.

      Resulting in the deaths of many innocents, and none of the people involved in making the decisions that lead to this in the first place.

      Why exactly would that be nice?

    18. Re:This is my shocked face by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      This is China we're talking about. While they're more than happy to take money form the US, they hate us with a passion and would love nothing more than to see us gone, even though it would essentially collapse their whole economy as well.

      I wouldn't put it past them to still be in full control of the space station and crash it into some high-value target in the US. "Oopsie!"

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    19. Re:This is my shocked face by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      I guess they sold it on eBay, because it comes with free shipping.

    20. Re:This is my shocked face by DaHat · · Score: 1

      At this moment in time, no, but it likely will be, multiple times over the next year in the next year: http://www.n2yo.com/?s=37820

      Note the two yellow line? One crossing over the northern end of South America and up through the US, and another going through the middle and missing North America?

      Unless a body is in geostationary orbit, you eventually going to have ever possible location within the inclination of your orbit under it at some point, as the body & the earth are rotating at different rates.

      This is why polar orbits are so useful for certain types of earth viewing satellites (mapping, spy) as you've the widest inclination and everything will eventually be under the satellite.

      Of course, hitting a city sized target with orbital debris is not as easy as it sounds. Unlike Call of Duty Ghosts, simply shooting down is the wrong answer (unless you happen to have unlimited energy and a projectile which will resist the higher temperatures such a high speed direct should would produce). Instead you'd attempt a de-orbit where your body is expected to land around the intended target... and hope that the shape & size of your body doesn't pull too much to one side or the other on the way down.

    21. Re:This is my shocked face by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

      Now, the remark about NASA having been fined for littering in Australia after Skylab fall is not funny anymore. But I'm not complaining, this is a remark on how some people may make little of these things.

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    22. Re:This is my shocked face by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      If you track its orbit, it does not cross Beijing ( or Washington DC ). The only US states it crosses is the southern parts from Californian to Texas. Aside from crossing parts of North and South America, its orbit is mostly over water.

      The orbit is a normal "procession" where it could pass over any point (especially uncontrolled) between about 45 degrees North and 45 degrees South of the equator.

      True, Alaska is not at risk, but the whole of the CONUS is, Northern South America, most of Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia and Southern Europe.

      It's more of a "belt" of possible overflight than geographic regions.

    23. Re:This is my shocked face by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      At least NASA planned to, and attempted to, deorbit Skylab into the southern Indian Ocean. That they screwed up and it hit Australia was certainly a giant screw-up on their part, sure. However, having a plan but failing to execute the plan properly, and not giving a rat's backside about where it lands in the first place, are pretty far apart.

    24. Re:This is my shocked face by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Anybody in Australia remember Skylab?

    25. Re:This is my shocked face by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      I can't name a single thing in my home that is china-made and has lasted very long.

      Logitech mouse, 17 years. Likewise, this generic, $10 keyboard. Audio receiver 25 years. I bought my refrigerator used, 19 years ago, but it's still going strong. Microwave oven...came with the house, probably 30 years old now. Pretty much nothing that 'came with the house' has been replaced in 20 years. Everything that has been replaced, except for a couple of DVD players, has been replaced to get new features or better performance.

      I don't know what you're doing with your stuff that it won't last 10 years, but maybe the problem is not the manufacturing.

    26. Re:This is my shocked face by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Carter didn't put it up there, and if he initiated a program to get it under control the day he took office, it would have been too late.

    27. Re:This is my shocked face by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Oops, forgot, they did (claim to) try to control it, but failed. Skylab was a massive kludge to start with, not surprising that the de-orbit control was dodgy.

      Now, PR and attitudes being what they are, it's entirely possible that NASA never really designed Skylab for a controlled re-entry, but to save face they did their best to drop it in the Pacific. Build yourself a Skylab in KSP and try to de-orbit it on 2kg of hydrazine, see if you even get as close as dropping it on the planned orbit, much less hitting an ocean.

    28. Re:This is my shocked face by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Actually, when it comes to stuff like touchscreen phones, it's damned impossible to get that designed and built in the US anymore - you do have to go to China.

      Now, if you pay the Chinese to build you a luxury yacht, and you supervise the suppliers sufficiently, they are indeed capable of building a world class luxury yacht, but it will cost nearly the same as building it in the US, possibly a little more if you have to take a lot of trans-pacific flights to manage the project.

    29. Re:This is my shocked face by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I have a 25 year old Japanese car with 130Kmiles on it, still in great shape.

      The bits of hardware, electrical switches, tools, and occasional appliance made in China can last a really long time - it may have branding like Black & Decker, but look close and it's made in China.

      My favorite pair of scissors are from India - big brass handled things, crude, and bullet-proof.

    30. Re:This is my shocked face by OhSoLaMeow · · Score: 2

      Typical Chinese manufacturing "quality" control here, eh?

      What are you talking about, Doc? All the best stuff is made in China

      --
      They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
    31. Re:This is my shocked face by tomhath · · Score: 1

      they'd either negotiate better quality (and higher price) with their Chinese manufacturers or they'd move their manufacturing to someone who can do a better job

      Signing a contract for a certain level of quality is just a ritual. You can negotiate all the quality you want, but the manufacturer will still try to get away with cutting corners. That's considered good business, and if you let them get away with it you're a dumb businessman.

    32. Re:This is my shocked face by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Survivorship bias. The Chinese are capable of making quality products, but companies move their manufacturing to China to cut costs and, since well-made Chinese products aren't much cheaper than well-made products from anywhere else, these companies specify that any possible corner is to be cut in the design, materials, and manufacturing.

      The Chinese products that you have that have lasted decades were either high quality products (and weren't dirt cheap) or are statistical flukes that had better quality than intended. Labor costs don't account for that much of a product's cost to manufacture. A complete lack of safety and environmental regulations will shave some small percentage off of the cost. Reducing the part count and using inferior (or even not fit for purpose) materials are the real cost savers. Well, that and an increasingly permissive QA process.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    33. Re: This is my shocked face by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      The Chinese were manufacturing reliable kitchen appliances thirty years ago? Not so sure about that - check the back; bet it says made in Korea or Japan on the back.

    34. Re:This is my shocked face by geoskd · · Score: 4, Funny

      We assure you that it' a complete coincidence that it's on a collision course with Washington D.C. Our most humble apologies for any inconvenience...

      Inconvenience hell, I would call that in incredible gesture of goodwill on the part of the Chinese.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    35. Re:This is my shocked face by geoskd · · Score: 1

      into some high-value target in the US.

      Thats going to be damn difficult, there isn't much left in this country that doesn't deserve active bombardment, much less saving. Maybe they'll hit the white house and spare us the embarrassment of three more years of whomever gets elected...

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    36. Re:This is my shocked face by Atryn · · Score: 1

      into some high-value target in the US.

      Thats going to be damn difficult, there isn't much left in this country that doesn't deserve active bombardment, much less saving.

      Your lack of patriotism is noted. Maybe you should move?

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    37. Re:This is my shocked face by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      That space station is for export. They just don't know to where it will be exported.

    38. Re:This is my shocked face by geoskd · · Score: 1

      Your lack of patriotism is noted. Maybe you should move?

      A coward runs from their home when things are less than ideal. A patriot stays put and defends their home, their neighbors, and their way of life, giving their own lives if necessary. A patriot will face any enemy foreign or domestic.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    39. Re:This is my shocked face by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      You sure made it sound like there isn't anything left worth defending. I think Atryn is right, you should go.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    40. Re:This is my shocked face by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Those of us who are older have seen this all before. Japanese products were crap, until the Japanese finally figured out what they were doing, got consistency and reliability down, and by the 1980s all the best stuff was made in Japan. Same thing happened with Taiwan and Korea in the 1990s-2000s.

      I haven't seen any evidence that China won't follow the same path. They're just still at the point where getting paid is more important to them than establishing and maintaining a reputation for making quality stuff.

    41. Re:This is my shocked face by rat7307 · · Score: 1

      Yep.

      I remember one of the local councils where some debris landed sent a fine to NASA for littering http://mentalfloss.com/article...

      --
      Burma?
    42. Re:This is my shocked face by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      are pretty far apart

      so half a world away?

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    43. Re:This is my shocked face by jimtheowl · · Score: 1

      I'm not from Australia, but yes.

      As I recall one person died.. from a heart attack in the middle of the night after screaming Skylab! Skylab!

      I don't have a URL handy; those were the days of the printed press.

    44. Re:This is my shocked face by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      The Chinese also had a plan to deorbit over the ocean, loss of control has screwed that plan. As for Skylab, as an older Aussie I remember it quite well, it was a huge news story here, NASA were not confident they knew where it would land (even with full control), Melbourne and Perth were real possibilities but they were hoping for the ocean. At the end of the day it landed closer to Perth than the ocean.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    45. Re:This is my shocked face by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I've seen no evidence that China is incapable of producing high-quality stuff

      You actually wrote this in comments about a SPACE STATION!

      Let's see whatever you do make it into orbit :)

    46. Re:This is my shocked face by dbIII · · Score: 1

      So they're exporting this space station to the US, then?

      Yes - every hour and a half :)

    47. Re:This is my shocked face by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      NASA were not confident they knew where it would land (even with full control),

      It's Australia, apart from a few isolated dots along the coast, what are you going to hit? Russia had the scorched earth policy, Australia just has the scorched earth.

    48. Re:This is my shocked face by fintux · · Score: 1

      Okay, but how exactly are items manufactured in Japan and India related to stuff made in China?

    49. Re:This is my shocked face by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      I can't name a single thing in my home that is china-made and has lasted very long.

      I'll be damned. Someone finally implemented RFC1149!

      Good for you, sir, but I'll stick with my chinese-made connectivity devices.

      P.S. My linksys is going to last a lot longer than your pigeon.

    50. Re:This is my shocked face by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Time was, not too long before 25 years ago, "Made in Japan" was viewed with equal contempt as "Made in China," cheap junk that broke easily.

      India, like China, makes things all sorts of ways - cheap and flashy for temporary use, and solid chunks that will outlive your grandchildren. When the Chinese make hardware to sell to the lowest bidder, the bidder is getting what they paid for - or less. They also make good stuff - not necessarily any cheaper than domestic, which means you usually don't get it imported.

    51. Re:This is my shocked face by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Maybe CrankyFool works at JPL, you never know...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    52. Re:This is my shocked face by hduff · · Score: 1

      Or camouflage some nuclear missiles?

      --
      "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    53. Re:This is my shocked face by fintux · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I have no memory of any Japanese manufactured stuff with low quality, not even mentioning a reputation of such for their products in general. I do, however, remember that in the 80's most things with "Made in Hong Kong" text had a similar reputation (when Hong Kong wasn't a part of China). Interestingly, Hong Kong is one of the more expensive places to live now, so I don't know if they even have cheap labour or cheap manufacture anymore.

    54. Re:This is my shocked face by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Japan's rep cleaned up tremendously in the 1980s, and it was improved for stuff like electronics by the 1960s. Before and after WWII, all that came from Japan was cheap stuff like you'd find in a Dollar Store today.

    55. Re:This is my shocked face by fintux · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the information, this was interesting. I'm an 80's kid so I don't remember these things well at all from the early 80's (and obviously can't remember anything from around WWII or the 60's that I haven't just learned from somewhere else).

  2. Peanut butter in my chocolate, but I'm allergic. by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Oops, I guess we're going to have to do another orbital weapons test."

  3. China china china... by sebc_deepspace · · Score: 1

    I guess they forgot to copy that part. They really are taking the "Made in China" to a new level of "I definately can't trust this"

    1. Re:China china china... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      oh they should be like the USA with its careful control of Skylab's re-entry? *snicker*

    2. Re:China china china... by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      *snicker*

      I wonder if people who type that phrase in little sound-effect punctuation marks realize how much they sound like a priggish, effete twelve year old who got into the third-scale faux fraternity at his private New England boarding school because daddy also got sent there by his annoyed (and annoying) parents.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:China china china... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Actually your post reads more effete and prissy than anything else under this article, did the bullies in boys prep school violate your dainty little bum often?

    4. Re:China china china... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      I'm flattered to be starring in one of your fantasies, AC. Be sure to wash the underside of your desk when playtime is over.

    5. Re:China china china... by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      In the defense of everyone involved... Without a de-orbit burn, it's goddamn near impossible to predict exactly when something at orbital velocity will succumb to air drag enough for its orbit to rapidly degrade.
      A lack of a de-orbit strategy really doesn't speak to the competency of any engineer or group of engineers involved. It's an economic and practical decision. It takes big boosters and lots of fuel to do a truly controlled de-orbit of a heavy spacecraft travelling at orbital velocities, and these stations aren't equipped for that. We used a booster launched from the ground to move it to its parking orbit.

      NASA considered adding retrorockets so that it could be deorbited in a controlled fashion, but the weight and cost was deemed worse than the risk involved with uncontrolled reentry.

  4. In reality, of course, they have it under control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    However, in order to disavow themselves from any responsibility, they are claiming now, that they can't control it, even as it will assuredly hit a target that threatens vital Chinese Interests.

    The only question is who tops the list? I'm thinking Donald Trump, but it might be Margaret Cho or perhaps the Denver Broncos.

  5. Good Heavens by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 2

    Yes, but there is also a chance that a tree limb will fall on my car precisely as I am driving under it. And a chance I am Schrodinger's cat, dreaming of being me while waiting for someone to press a button.

    The odds against the station landing in a crowd are pretty high. To get a simplified view of this, consider drawing a line in a circle around the earth and how many times it would hit a crowd.

    --
    Real lawyers write in C++
    1. Re:Good Heavens by erapert · · Score: 2, Insightful
      That's true. But engineers smart enough to get a space station into orbit are also smart enough to figure out how to burn it up safely... if they cared or were told to.

      No, I think Pseudonymous Powers' post nailed it on the head:

      "Oops, I guess we're going to have to do another orbital weapons test."

    2. Re: Good Heavens by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And after drawing a worst-case-scenario circle through as many cities as you could, all of those cities combined covered probably less than what, about 0.0001% of the length of the line? Pretty low odds for a collision.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Good Heavens by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      there is also a chance that a tree limb will fall on my car precisely as I am driving under it.

      There's a chance that a tree limb will fall on your car while you're parked under it, too, but you can minimize that risk by not parking under a tree. There's nothing we can do to not park a city in the path of falling debris. Even if the chance is very [very, very, very] low, it's still unacceptable.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re: Good Heavens by pla · · Score: 2

      Clap Clap Clap.

      Now tell us what fraction of the total length of that line actually fell within city limits rather than "middle of the ocean/desert"?

      And that woefully low number comes from a line you cherry-picked. Try again by throwing two darts at a map and draw your line through them - Repeat. Repeat. Now tell us what fraction of those lines ever even intersect a city.

      Slashdot really needs to ban ACs. You worthless wastes of electrons get less useful and more hostile every year.

    5. Re: Good Heavens by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I drew a line and it went through New York and Los Angeles, not to mention all the smaller cities in between, and that's just Anerica.

      You are a fucking idiot, you know that?

      Oh wow. Just wow. Wait do people like you actually exist and think like you do, or are you just trolling for the lolz? Is this what the no-child-left-behind policy produces?

  6. Ground control to Major Tong. by JustNiz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Take your soy sauce pills and put your helmet on.

    1. Re:Ground control to Major Tong. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      +5 funny, -5 PC

  7. Clickbait (or just hopeless headlining) by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    China Confirms Its Space Station Is Falling Back to Earth

    Given that they just launched Tiangong-2 a few days ago, it might have been nice to clarify that it's Tiangong-1 which is falling to Earth.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Clickbait (or just hopeless headlining) by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      China Confirms Its Space Station Is Falling Back to Earth

      Given that they just launched Tiangong-2 a few days ago, it might have been nice to clarify that it's Tiangong-1 which is falling to Earth.

      That's extraordinary. Doesn't China have a Public Relations Department?

    2. Re:Clickbait (or just hopeless headlining) by geekmux · · Score: 1

      China Confirms Its Space Station Is Falling Back to Earth

      Given that they just launched Tiangong-2 a few days ago, it might have been nice to clarify that it's Tiangong-1 which is falling to Earth.

      Given that they no longer control an entire space station and have potentially put quite a few random humans in harms way, I'd say the accurate clarification and new label roughly translates into "look out below!".

    3. Re:Clickbait (or just hopeless headlining) by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      It's not nice to have something that large deorbit out of control, but note that the earth is mostly covered with ocean and the two Space Shuttle crashes and various other things that have fallen out of the air haven't struck anyone. The largest problems so far have all been about radioisotope thermal generators that fall to earth and cause contamination. A few satellites and Apollo 13 have dropped them, but the contamination from Soviet RTGs that were used to power beacons and lighthouses has been much worse.

    4. Re:Clickbait (or just hopeless headlining) by geekmux · · Score: 1

      It's not nice to have something that large deorbit out of control, but note that the earth is mostly covered with ocean and the two Space Shuttle crashes and various other things that have fallen out of the air haven't struck anyone...

      (sits down to a game of Russian Roulette and picks up gun)

      *click*

      *click*

      "Well, that's a relief. I feel sooo much safer now. Keep playing? Sure, why not. What could possibly go wrong?"

      When I read the word "mostly" in this context, it reminds of a redacted definition of Earth, infamously defined as mostly harmless...

    5. Re:Clickbait (or just hopeless headlining) by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Well, given that the Earth is constantly being bombarded by meteors, you must live in terror :-)

  8. Re:central planning at work by rubycodez · · Score: 5, Informative

    what a load of shit, I can think of a capitalist superpower that didn't give a flying *** where its space station with NINE TIMES the mass of this one crash landed

  9. Accidentally hit Tokyo by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    They're not sure where it's going to land huh?

    So when it accidentally hits Tokyo with pinpoint accuracy we're all going to be astonished.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  10. everything old is new again! by Thud457 · · Score: 2

    Come on China, I could use a free taco!

    Or Australialiaia will send them a bill for littering!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  11. Don't worry by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    North Korea will save us. They've been testing their missiles for a while now. I'm sure they'd be happy to nuke it into oblivion.

    1. Re:Don't worry by macs4all · · Score: 1

      North Korea will save us. They've been testing their missiles for a while now. I'm sure they'd be happy to nuke it into oblivion.

      With their non-luck at rocketry, I'd rather take my chances with the Chinese uncontrolled re-entry hitting my house...

  12. Re:NASA, track this! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Australia. I'm sure the kangaroos will be thrilled again. Skylab was an absolute blast last time.

  13. There's only one way to deal with this by Kierthos · · Score: 1

    Someone call Michael Bay and tell him about a great movie idea.

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    1. Re:There's only one way to deal with this by kuzb · · Score: 1

      Bruce Willis is currently not available to deal with your space-threat as he's too busy hating on Die Hard fans. Fortunately Willis was cloned some time ago at a secret lab in England, and Jason Statham (codename Willis mk2) is ready to step up.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    2. Re:There's only one way to deal with this by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Jason Statham is good, but he doesn't have Bruce's sense of comedy, which was essential for (some of) his action roles.

  14. I've watched enough anime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There are two possible outcomes if it ends up being on a collision course with Tokyo.

    1) Giant robots will intercept the station, causing some collateral damage, but at least one civilian will be photographed looking up to see the former space station stopped mere meters above his or her head.

    2) Tokyo will explode with the force equivalent of solar flare.

    1. Re:I've watched enough anime by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Do not forget that the giant robots, for unknown reasons, must be piloted by troubled teenagers.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    2. Re:I've watched enough anime by NotAPK · · Score: 2

      And China-Japan tensions have been, er, tense, for thousands of years, and especially since WWII.

      It's because of the China-Japan confrontation that the US is involved. By ensuring Japan could not rebuild its military post-WWII the US had to promise to protect Japan. So if China acts against Japan then the US has to step in and before you know it we have WWIII on our hands. This is why the South China Sea situation is such a concern. One nasty flair-up over some sandy reefs (the ecology of which China has trashed btw) and drilling rights and I worry which way the future could go.

      The GPP was being funny about China's space station "accidentally-on-purpose" crashing into Tokyo. The PP then made a quip that Japan's giant robots would defend them. And now here I am, explaining all of this like a moron to some idiot AC on /. ...damn, I need another drink!

    3. Re:I've watched enough anime by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      In Brazil we have a phrase for it: "Maldita inclusão digital!" (Damn digital inclusion!). Meaning that has become so easy to use a computer that now any fool can comment on ./ (gives a beer to NotAPK).

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    4. Re:I've watched enough anime by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      Cheers my friend! Right back at ya!

    5. Re:I've watched enough anime by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      2) Tokyo will explode with the force equivalent of solar flare.

      Probably something like this.

  15. Re:Liability? by lobiusmoop · · Score: 1

    Statistically speaking, it's most probably just going to land in the ocean.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
  16. Re:Liability? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    The insurance companies will probably define it as an Act of God.

  17. Re:In reality, of course, they have it under contr by gfxguy · · Score: 1

    When it takes out targets in Washington, D.C., they can say "it was just a happy circumstance."

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  18. To quote Tom Lehrer. . . by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

    " . . .vunce rockets go up, who cares where they come down,
    'That's not my department', says Werner Von Braun. . . . "

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  19. Bring it down carefully by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    If they are smart, they will launch a set of final missions that involve attaching parachutes to the main large pieces.

    Break off the smaller, delicate things, intentionally, then program the parachutes to deploy when it hits 8 miles above the land.

    If we can parachute material onto mars, we should be able to do the same onto earth.

    I bet they could

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Bring it down carefully by kuzb · · Score: 1

      I bet they won't, because $$$.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    2. Re:Bring it down carefully by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      The money is why they WANT to do this.

      1) It's new, IMPORTANT engineering science. I am pretty sure t would become the test of the single largest landing craft in atmospheric conditions ever. We want large shuttle crafts, not capsules, and this would tell us how to build one.

      2) It's a huge public relations positive. It comes with bragging rights (US nor Russia ever did this), as well as "Look, we are responsible, unlike you dangerous space litterers."

      3) Once they do it successfully, they could lobby for international laws requiring deorbiting and start selling their services to others.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    3. Re:Bring it down carefully by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Joking or ignorant?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Bring it down carefully by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      You have mistaken low probability/high danger with 0 risk.

      You are like the casino that says "Give them a million to one shot to win the casino for just $100 ticket" and then is SHOCKED when someone wins and demands the casino.

      Long shots come in over the long term, with enough time and attempts.

      Government do fall, people do get held responsible, and even killed. Just because it's rare doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    5. Re:Bring it down carefully by kuzb · · Score: 1

      I don't think you're wrong, I just don't think they share your sensibilities regarding the potential benefits. It's cheaper and easier to just let it do whatever.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    6. Re:Bring it down carefully by tomhath · · Score: 1

      I assume you're kidding. If not, please watch videos of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and let us know at what point a chute could be deployed.

    7. Re:Bring it down carefully by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Hundreds of times easier than that would be to push it up into a higher orbit and do something useful with it.

  20. Re:Peanut butter in my chocolate, but I'm allergic by rhazz · · Score: 1

    But that would send debris hurtling through space that would kill the American astronauts in the middle of a spacewalk to do repairs on the Hubble telescope. C'mon people, this is exactly how Gravity started!!

  21. Re:central planning at work by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    The article said this was well below the reputation of other space programs.

    NASA is probably the largest space program and arguably owned by the most free market oriented nation in the world.

  22. America Did It First! USA! USA! USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Day Skylab Crashed to Earth: Facts About the First U.S. Space Station’s Re-Entry
    July 11, 2012 By Elizabeth Hanes

    On July 11, 1979, the world watched as Skylab, America’s first manned space station, hurtled toward Earth. With the massive orbiter nearing re-entry, reactions on the ground ranged from fear to celebration to commercial opportunism. On the 33rd anniversary of Skylab’s fiery return to terra firma, find out more about the causes and fallout of the crash, as well as how NASA scrambled to cope with it.

    1. Skylab was made to go up but not to come back down.
    The space station known as Skylab was designed as an orbiting workshop for research on scientific matters, such as the effects of prolonged weightlessness on the human body. Because the project represented the next step toward wider space exploration, NASA threw itself into successfully putting Skylab in orbit. Unfortunately, the agency spent far less time and energy planning how to gracefully bring the space station back to Earth at the end of its mission. Even though Skylab was devised for just a nine-year lifespan, NASA failed to build in any control or navigation mechanisms to return the orbiter to terra firma. Doing so would have “cost too much,” administrator Robert Frosch said at the time. This lack of preparation presented a problem in late 1978, when NASA engineers discovered the station’s orbit was decaying rapidly. Skylab had become a 77-ton loose cannon. As word spread of the impending uncontrolled crash of the space station, Congress and the public demanded to know how NASA intended to avoid human casualties from the potential disaster. NASA responded with a plan to rehabilitate the laboratory-in-the-sky. The agency would use a new tool in development—the space shuttle—to boost Skylab into a higher orbit, thereby extending the lab’s operational life by about five years. After that, the station would simply continue to orbit as a shell, like the millions of tons of floating detritus now known as space junk. Funding and other snafus delayed the shuttle project, however, so NASA had to come up with a new plan. On July 11, 1979, with Skylab rapidly descending from orbit, engineers fired the station’s booster rockets, sending it into a tumble they hoped would bring it down in the Indian Ocean. They were close. While large chunks did go into the ocean, parts of the space station also littered populated areas of western Australia. Fortunately, no one was injured.

    2. In June 1979, as the crash approached, Skylab-inspired parties and products were all the rage in the United States.
    The imminent crash of Skylab midway through 1979 coincided with Americans’ declining confidence in their government. The stagnant economy and a second oil crisis dropped Congress’ approval rating to just 19 percent that year. Perhaps it’s no surprise, then, that many people took an irreverent view of the demise of Skylab, a government project. The Associated Press reported several instances of “Skylab parties” occurring across the United States. In St. Louis, Missouri, the “Skylab Watchers and Gourmet Diners Society” announced plans to view Skylab’s last orbit during a garden gathering at which “hard hats or similar protective headgear” were required. The Charlotte, North Carolina, News-Observer reported that a local hotel designated itself an “official Skylab crash zone (complete with painted target)” and was holding a poolside disco party. Mocking NASA’s inability to say precisely where Skylab would land, entrepreneurs across the country sold T-shirts emblazoned with large bullseyes. Another enterprising individual took a different tack and sold cans of “Skylab repellent.”

    3. In Europe and Asia, fear of Skylab’s re-entry prompted unusual safety measures.
    While

  23. Skylab Sketch by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Could someone dub John Belushi's Skylab sketch in Mandarin?

  24. Re:Prototypes: don't use them in production by orlanz · · Score: 1

    Ok, now the HARD question. How do you convince the PHB to do that?

  25. That's a bummer by marmot7 · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't wish a space station falling out of sky on my worst enemy. We are all in this together. That's the truth. Now hide under the couch until the debris clears. :-)

  26. Re:central planning at work by Luthair · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yea its not like companies don't open subsidiaries which they simply declare bankrupt to avoid the financial consequences of their incompetence - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  27. Made in China by mi · · Score: 1

    10 times cheaper, 3 times worse...

    Seriously, they simply don't value human life as much as we do. Whereas Western governments consider a human life to be worth nearly $10 million, Russia, for example, values theirs at no more than $2 million. In China, according to WorldBank study, it is less than 2 mln yuan, or less than $300K.

    So, it may make sense for NASA to spend an extra $1 million to reduce a risk to one human's life by 10%. But for the Chinese to spend $1 million, the risk has to be 30+ times greater...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  28. China didn't announce losing control of Tiangong-1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Where did Avery Thompson got the idea that China has lost control of Tiangong-1?

    Quote from his article: http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/satellites/a22936/tiangong-falling-to-earth/,

    "In a press conference on Wednesday, Chinese officials appear to have confirmed what many observers have long suspected: that China is no longer in control of its space station."

    That "press conference" he referred to as his proof, says exactly the opposite, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-09/14/c_135687885.htm,

    ""Based on our calculation and analysis, most parts of the space lab will burn up during falling," she said, adding that it was unlikely to affect aviation activities or cause damage to the ground.

    China has always highly valued the management of space debris, conducting research and tests on space debris mitigation and cleaning, Wu said.

    Now, China will continue to monitor Tiangong-1 and strengthen early warning for possible collision with objects. If necessary, China will release a forecast of its falling and report it internationally, said Wu."

  29. China has anti-satellite weapons by mi · · Score: 2

    Or they can use their anti-satellite weapons to break up the contraption into smaller (and thus more likely to burn in the atmosphere) pieces, while simultaneously:

    • Justifying their development of such weapons;
    • Testing them yet again;
    • Putting adversaries (the US) on notice, that their own satellites aren't immune either, should a push ever come to shove.

    Not that we don't already know that.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:China has anti-satellite weapons by dbIII · · Score: 1

      You forgot a 4th point - send fragments all over the place to potentially damage things in all nearby orbits, or if small bits break off at high speed, even very distant orbits.
      Make something go boom and some stuff goes up instead of just down. Since the effects of the earths gravity are a lot less that far out a lot of it is going to go up and take a long time to go down. A big enough boom and some bits may even end up in a fairly stable orbit higher up.
      I suggest you look up space junk for some ideas about how it's not just going to fall down quickly in a few harmless bits.

    2. Re:China has anti-satellite weapons by mi · · Score: 1

      Since the effects of the earths gravity are a lot less that far out

      They don't have to hit it now — but wait for it to get a lot closer in its spiral towards Earth during the 2017. Then hit it on the edge of the atmosphere.

      I suggest you look up space junk for some ideas about how it's not just going to fall down quickly in a few harmless bits.

      Why would the Chinese, who, obviously, are fine with their space-station falling to Earth uncontrollably and unpredictably, worry about a little bit more space-junk?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:China has anti-satellite weapons by dbIII · · Score: 1

      News just in - explosions send shit everywhere. Even on "the edge of the atmosphere".
      For a bit of good fiction which explains what I'm talking about by around a few billion, but still gets the message across in general terms, take a look at the first part of "Seven Eves".
      In short when you have high velocity bits going all over the place you end up with some going up as well as some going down instead of the nice neat settling of dust that most people imagine. Air resistance is very low in LEO (but not nil) and gravity isn't so strong up there so if you explode something a lot of stuff goes up and stays up for a long time.


      Just letting it fall is better than a lot of other options since it's a vast amount smaller than Skylab and most bits probably won't make it to the ground anyway. It's not as if it's got huge amounts of stuff that is difficult to melt like the Kosmos satellites with shielded nuclear fuel onboard - those things have come down in large pieces.

    4. Re:China has anti-satellite weapons by mi · · Score: 1

      News just in - explosions send shit everywhere. Even on "the edge of the atmosphere".

      Obviously, not even a nuclear blast on the Earth's surface would send anything into orbit. So, the deeper into the gravity well you get, the bigger explosions you can "afford" without creating any more space-junk.

      And my "plan" did not involve very strong blast — just enough to break the contraption into several pieces. It and can be calculated so that any shrapnel would still end up burning in the air even if not right away. Besides, for all we know, their anti-satellite weapons may not be of the kinetic/exploding kind at all — simply drilling or sawing into a satellite would break it apart...

      a lot of stuff goes up and stays up for a long time.

      And now to my second point, which is that the Chinese may not care. Not to say, I don't — but we aren't talking about what we'd prefer...

      Just letting it fall is better than a lot of other options

      That may well be true. But neither of us advises Chinese government, who, for example, may have a secondary objective of showing off their orbital weapons again...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    5. Re:China has anti-satellite weapons by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Obviously, not even a nuclear blast on the Earth's surface would send anything into orbit

      We have rocks in Antarctica and many other places that have got there after something hit Mars fairly hard.
      Your "obviously" is an example of where thinking in terms of what you see in your immediate environment is not enough to cover some other situations.

      just enough to break the contraption into several pieces. It and can be calculated so that any shrapnel would still end up burning in the air even if not right away.

      Maybe try reading that fiction I mentioned or some non fiction - or perhaps even a real video of something blowing up to dispel a bit of the Hollywood thinking in action here.
      Those little bits flying everywhere are a problem when even paint flecks are classed as dangerous space junk.

    6. Re:China has anti-satellite weapons by dbIII · · Score: 1

      So, the deeper into the gravity well you get, the bigger explosions you can "afford" without creating any more space-junk

      By exploding them you are talking about adding velocity to things that are already moving at orbital velocities. I suggest you think about it in those terms as an aid to understanding. You should be able to work out that many fragments are going to go up and continue orbiting from that.

  30. It’ll mostly likely all burn up. by Existential+Wombat · · Score: 1

    Except the toilet.

  31. Re:central planning at work by bravecanadian · · Score: 2

    Once you take the profit motive out and allow centrally planned offices to remove the research redundancy and the creativity of committees to combine in these controlled ways ... there is no limit to the disasters you can accomplish.

    Don't forget the importance of having everyone on the engineering team educated in public institutions.

    What a load of shit.

    There can be bad management in private organizations just like there is bad management in public organizations.

    And if we're talking about research and development, the public always does the bulk of pure research anyways..

  32. Re:Liability? by pla · · Score: 1

    I thought China had an official stance of atheism?

    Then again... You could probably convince $Deity to pay before China would ever cough up a single dime. ;)

  33. Where's SpaceX? by spidey3 · · Score: 1

    Maybe Elon can send up a Dragon on one of the recovered Falcon 9's to try to dock and bring it down gracefully...

  34. We must come to their aid! by Camel+Racer · · Score: 2

    After all, they helped us rescue Matt Damon from Mars.

    --
    Anybody can work under ideal circumstances. -- Jeff K. (January 4, 2001)
  35. No one can predict when it will crash. by mstrcat · · Score: 1

    The calculations to predict when the space station will actually de-orbit are nearly as complex as weather forecasts. It's impossible to do long term, accurate predictions. As for damage, that is one possibility, though lack of fuel to do the final de-orbit burn is also a possibility. As far as suggestions to do weapons testing on it to break up the station, that is a absolutely terrible idea; it just adds to the growing orbital space junk problem.

  36. Not the first time this has happened by sjbe · · Score: 5, Informative

    No kidding. Chinese government confirmed (yet again) for not valuing human life overly much.

    The US and Russia have both had plenty of satellites re-enter the atmosphere completely uncontrolled. If you are going to throw shade at least don't be a hypocrite while you do it. If the thing malfunctioned then this is exactly the expected final result.

    If the damned thing strikes in a populated area and people die, I say they drag them into The Hauge for a crime against humanity.

    Got any other impotent rage you'd like to get out?

  37. Re:America Did It First! USA! USA! USA! by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    orbiting workshop for research on scientific matters

    Skylab gave us lots of insight of space station occupancy from dealing with bone/muscle loss, designing crew quarters with vertical references, preparing daily task lists that are not so nitpicky on details.

    “Skylab parties”

    I remember news clips (yep, I'm that old) of various people entering in bomb shelters. In 1979, Air and Space magazine (or some other well known magazine) had a drawing showing structural ring and large water cylinders descending on a sleepy midwest town (oh the horror of Skylab is falling, Skylab is falling).

    $10,000 prize to the first person to deliver a piece of Skylab debris

    I remember that, the debris wasn't much, looked like charcoal briquits. I remember after STS-1 launch and missing tiles on the OMS pods, same SF newspaper offered a prize for first person to deliver a missing tile or portion. Columnist wrote, "We blew the bank on the Skylab prize so this award will be only one dollar."

    possible to own a piece of Skylab debris today.

    This reminds me I do own a piece of Skylab! A poster I bought from NSS as part of their fundraising campaigns is a Skylab poster with a one inch square of the O2 or water tank insulation. It's somewhere along with my stack of papers and posters of all kinds of various stuff (much of what I forgot).

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  38. Why, at least it came down by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    Would you much rather that it hang around in orbit and strike other active satellites?

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:Why, at least it came down by Tim+the+Gecko · · Score: 2

      I don't think that's really a choice, but no, I don't want that.

      I mainly posted about Skylab because I am amazed by the lack of historical context in a lot of the comments here.

    2. Re:Why, at least it came down by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      You get used to it.

      You'll get modded down a lot because there seems to be a distinct lack of education of history in schools nowadays, so the whole doom thing is rearing it's ugly head.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    3. Re:Why, at least it came down by sabbede · · Score: 1

      I opened the comments for the specific purpose of seeing if anyone did. So thanks!

    4. Re:Why, at least it came down by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Many of the children passing for Slashdot's readership are so young they can't even remember Skylab coming down, let alone going up.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  39. Re:China didn't announce losing control of Tiangon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It doesn't say the opposite, rather it carefully avoids saying they are actually in control.

  40. Re:central planning at work by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

    You realize that NASA isn't a capitalist institution right? Not that it matters as a private company would be just as careless, but your argument is off base.

    wait, NASA isn't a corporation and not a legal person???

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  41. NORAD knows by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Well, not at the moment - they would just have an approximation. But as we get closer, NORAD should have a very accurate idea of where and when it will re-enter.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:NORAD knows by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Re-entry predictions of uncontrolled satellites are not very certain. We can say for sure what track the re-entry will occur on (generally the orbital track), but where on that track is far less certain.

      Even predictions issued 3 hours before re-entry may be affected by an along-track uncertainty of 40,000 km (i.e. one whole orbit), possibly halved during the last hour.

  42. Re:America Did It First! USA! USA! USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    After that, the station would simply continue to orbit as a shell, like the millions of tons of floating detritus now known as space junk. (...)

    I don't think humans have ever sent millions of tons of stuff into space.

    Excuse the nitpicking.

  43. Re:central planning at work by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    I never said NASA was. Reading comprehension opportunity exists for you.

  44. Poor George Lass.... by tekrat · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ellen Muth hit by a toilet seat... AGAIN!

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Poor George Lass.... by OzoneLad · · Score: 1

      Damn. Beat me to it.

  45. Re:central planning at work by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    Where the surviving chunks did rain down, Australia, is pretty large too

  46. Internet Tough Guy by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Sure. You volunteering?

    I just love Internet Tough Guys. Do you seriously think your pretend threat would actually concern anyone?

    I don't like the Chinese government...

    Nobody cares. Especially those of us who have actually been outside the USA at some point.

    1. Re:Internet Tough Guy by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I just love Internet Tough Guys. Do you seriously think your pretend threat would actually concern anyone?

      Shhh. I love my daily dose of comedy. Just say you like China as they make the best woodchippers so we on the side lines get some more of it :)

  47. Garbage Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    TFA seems to imply that the crew of the 'space station' returned to Earth recently, but the wikipedia article says that the last crew returned in 2013 after staying only 11 days on the 'space station'. So the article has to be taken with more than a small grain of salt.

  48. so.... by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    Anyone else remember people selling/buying skylab helmets?

  49. Ha ha... by sudden.zero · · Score: 1

    ...Good, I hope that it falls right on Shanghai Tower!

  50. Re:NASA, track this! by ben_kelley · · Score: 1

    If Australia can fine the USA for littering, it can fine China. http://www.skymania.com/wp/2009/07/nasas-litter-bill-paid-30-years-on.html/691/

  51. Re:NASA, track this! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Australia. I'm sure the kangaroos will be thrilled again. Skylab was an absolute blast last time.

    Hey we taught NASA a lesson for that. Surely the Chinese government won't want a repeat of that disaster.

  52. It's skylab all over again by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    Need to find my old tee shirt that had the target on it's front.

  53. Re:Peanut butter in my chocolate, but I'm allergic by blindseer · · Score: 1

    Actually I was thinking more about how Dead Like Me started. If the toilet seat from this space station kills a young lady on the west coast USA then we have some sort of... something. Prescient?

    Not like I wish anyone dead from this but if someone did die then I'd laugh at the absurdity of it. I'd also wonder what else that show got right.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  54. Re:China didn't announce losing control of Tiangon by yo303 · · Score: 1

    No, the article says exactly that the Chinese have lost control over it. They are calculating that it will break up on re-entry, but they have no control over when it will break up. Having control means you could fire retro-rockets at the right time to have it come down over the ocean. There is nothing in your quote that says they have ANY control.

  55. Salvage opportunity? by blindseer · · Score: 1

    What is the law of the sea say about abandoned ships? Would not this law also apply to abandoned spacecraft?

    As I recall if a ship or cargo is abandoned at sea anyone can come along and claim it as their own, especially if the flotsam and jetsam is a navigation hazard. I'd like to see some private company raise funds to capture this space station, restore it to a stable orbit, and claim it as their own.

    Why a private organization and not NASA? Because I don't expect any government space agency would be willing to to this if only because of the funding involved but also because it might be a political problem. A private company could, maybe, avoid the political problems. I'd also think that there would be a lot of bragging rights in pulling this off.

    This space station is expected to fall out of the sky within a year, can anyone plan a capture and re-orbit mission in that time?

    I'm assuming the legal issues can be solved in that time, China doesn't just shoot it down, and there's enough value in doing this. Bragging rights gets one only so far, is there anything else of value to be gained here? As in, what use is the space station assuming someone can grab it.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  56. Fix? by transami · · Score: 1

    Is it worth saving? How hard can be to send up a repair mission and readjust the orbit? I mean if you can't do that, what the hell are you doing in space to begin with? .... Oh, military.

    --
    :T:R:A:N:S:
  57. Re: growing orbital space junk problem by FranklinWebber · · Score: 1

    That depends on how the destruction is done. A good comparison is between China's destruction of Fengyun 1C in 2007 and the US' destruction of USA-193 in 2008. The former was done at a higher altitude than the latter. The former created 3425 catalogued(*) pieces of debris, some of which will remain in orbit for decades, whereas the latter created 174 catalogued(*) pieces of debris, none of which remained in orbit two years later.

    Tiangong-1 is at a lower altitude than Fengyun 1C (perhaps obvious, since it's about to deorbit), so it's not out of the question for China to destroy it in a way that doesn't make a permanent mess. I'm not advocating that, I don't know whether that's a good idea, I don't know if China has the capability to do that, I'm just disputing your blanket assertion that it's an "absolutely terrible idea".

    (*) I mean catalogued by the US military and made available unclassified. It's worth noting that the US military usually keeps orbital data about classified satellites classified. It seems to have made an exception for the debris of USA-193, perhaps for good public relations in discussions such as this one.

  58. Re:NASA, track this! by Pseudonym · · Score: 1
    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  59. A bit more than that see photo in article by dbIII · · Score: 1

    I remember that, the debris wasn't much, looked like charcoal briquits

    There was one portion weighing over a ton that was brought on the back of a truck to display at the Miss Universe pagent in Perth:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/08/that-time-a-space-station-became-part-of-the-miss-universe-pageant/278953/

    1. Re:A bit more than that see photo in article by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      I remember that as well though too big to take to San Francisco in a short time to get the prize money so whats-his-name only brought along the briqits but imagine if someone brought this beast to SF!

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
  60. Re: NASA, track this! by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    No need to apologise at all. In Australia, this is known as the "cultural cringe era". It's not hard to see why.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});