27th September 2012
Since the dawn of the space age, more than 20 000 objects larger than a softball have accumulated in Earth’s orbit. About 1000 of those objects are spacecraft that carry active payloads, serving many valuable missions for mankind. But the rest could best be called junk, the by-product of thousands of launches and routine spacecraft deployments, nearly 200 explosions, and several collisions. And this junk poses a serious problem.
Not to me, it doesn’t. I’m sure that the people for whom it does represent a problem, i.e. the people (mostly governments and corporations) who have satellites up, are aware of it and taking whatever action they think is appropriate. (Or maybe not – the chief achievement of government employees, including NASA, is to kick the can down the road.)
This sort of the-sky-is-falling thumbsucker of an article is why there are so many hysterical buttinskys wandering around.
How do we change our ways?
What do you mean ‘we’, paleface? ‘We’ don’t. It’s not been demonstrated that it’s any of ‘our’ business.
One of the ugliest features of modern ‘journalism’ is the habitual, reflexive tendency to find something that can be characterized as a problem, and then JUMP to the conclusion that it’s some sort of character flaw in ‘us’ that ‘we’ need to fix. And the MUST HAVE proposed solution is invariably something that the government MUST DO, at taxpayer expense.
NASA continues to fight a growing hazard with what has been, at best, a level budget.
Translation: WE NEED MORE MONEY!!!!! (Not surprising when you look at who’s writing the article..)
What NASA—and the world—needs is a clear mandate.
I’ll give you a ‘clear mandate': Mind your own bloody business.
You want to ‘fix’ this ‘problem’, fine, it’s your problem, you pay for the fix. Put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is, leech.