39
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Maybe the countries who put it up there should have had a plan for taking it down? Or at least pay for it?

Their failure is a huge opportunity for the usual grifters.

[-] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 3 points 4 months ago

It is been a plan for a while in the USA to shift launches from government run to private run for over a decade. This is just an implementation of that strategy.

[-] drwho@beehaw.org 2 points 4 months ago

Longer - fifteen, closer to twenty years. It took this long for there to be one or two companies that they could be sure wouldn't just cut and run (especially given how cutthroat the aerospace industry is).

[-] drwho@beehaw.org 1 points 4 months ago

They have had a plan for it, from the very beginning. Big-budget space projects like ISS don't get anywhere without a wrap-up plan. ISS is in LEO, and its mass contraindicates moving it into a graveyard orbit. Conventionally, stuff in LEO gets de-orbited; same thing happened with Skylab in '79.

this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
39 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37702 readers
138 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS