With a rogue satallite due to crash sometime this week news stories, like this one in Time, repeatedly quote someone as saying
Why?
‘Cause it’s frickin’ hot!!
Because rocket fuel and other propellants can be caustic or toxic, and parts may be contaminated.
It’s dangerous.
Not to mention that the satellite has been exposed to cosmic radiation!!! Do you really want to turn into this?
Andromeda Strain comes to mind.
Also, radiation can be a concern in certain situations.
So we are to think that 12000 pounds of metal will burn up but toxins may remain on a pound of scrap? Maybe I suppose. But this begs for some explanation. News stories usually don’t miss any opportunity to mention toxins. There is not mention in the news stories of radioactivity. News stories especially don’t miss any opportunity to mention
The usual answer is officially that they worry it may still be contaminated with station keeping fuel. Which there is an outside chance of, if the bit of debris was a fuel tank. The fuel is usually hydrazine, which is nasty enough that you really don’t want to touch it. In reality they probably just don’t want random bits turning up on eBay.
After the Columbia accident there was enough bad behaviour with debris, that NASA became quite stern with the warnings. Here of course they had a very clear need to get hold of everything they could find, and random idiots taking souvenirs or trying to sell (ransom) back parts did not go down well. One could cynically suggest that the current warnings are an attempt the keep alive the idea that you shouldn’t touch anything
Or evil.
Or they just don’t want you stealing it. Satellites are expensive and they may get some value out of the wreckage.
Did the Feds come and take you away mid-post? I’m impressed: they’re usually not that efficient.
I’m going to assume you meant “. . . alien invasion.”
Space junk is still legally the property of its original owner, not whoever finds it. Some reasons they might not want it messed with are safety, possibility of industrial espionage, or scientific/forensic study (for example, after the Columbia break-up).
All these read like very good reason. The news story in Time purports to be a quote from NASA. So, a follow up question. Why did the bloody press release to the media not spell out these good reasons?
There has been at least one fatality. I think her name was Sally. This might not count, since she was hit by falling Space Junk. I think this happened in New York or Miami beach (though heavy metal fell in Cuba Angola and Saudi Arabia).
According to this article, its because Nasa say “there are no toxic chemicals present, but there could be sharp edges.” Whoa, slow down with the rocket science there, poindexter!
How does Nasa enforce this ‘its our property’ idea if the junk falls outside the US? If it lands on my house, I’m definitely keeping it.
I’m kinda thinking that if my car went down a hill because I forget to set the brake or it failed and it wound up in your yard, my car would still be my car.
Just sayin’ .
Oh, wait, if it falls in another country? Huh… how do we get airliners back and such?
Calling all Men In Black…converge on Bakhesh’s house immediately and take no prisoners…
Or charging rent.
Yeah, but if you forgot to set the brake, then deliberately launched into the air, before seeing it crash down on someone’s house on the other side of the world, would you knock on the door and ask for it back?
Does the US expect to get its exocets back once they have landed?
Yeah, but it’s equally likley to turn you into this - in which case, PM me.
More cautionary tales.