I really thought that I was done writing for the night, but after reading Gail Collins’ Op-Ed piece on the successful downing of an inoperational satellite by the Pentagon, I couldn’t resist making mention of it here. It is Vonnegut-worthy satire.
As Collins’ reported, the cost of knocking this hunk of metal out of the sky was a cool 60 million. Upon the Pentagon’s recommendation, the President decided that the tiny odds that this dysfunctional satellite would fall smack into someone’s back yard and filling it with an unpleasant gas justified the cost of taking it out. Mind you, I’m all for protecting my own little ecosystem out here in Eden, but as Collins points out, an estimated 17,000 things have already made their way from space to Earth through out atmosphere and the odds of any single one of them hitting us is several million to one. My back yard and I, for one, have yet to be hit.
Collins challenges her readers to imagine what they might do with 60 million to invest in protecting their personal safety. Here’s my two cents; and I’ll even stick to the topic at hand. Instead of playing star wars with defective space equipment, I would invest the 60 million in research grants to PhDs and postdocs for the purpose of creating environmentally friendly satellites, ones that would burn up upon passing back through the earth’s atmosphere without being blown to smithereens beforehand. Alternatively, my 60 million might support research and development of satellites with a longer shelf-life; these “environmentally friendly” satellites could be easily be retooled and upgraded as technological advances deemed necessary. And I’m not a scientist! Heaven knows there are better ideas out there!
Here’s a link The New York Times news story on the event. It includes a great picture. Here’s the critical Chinese response to the event as reported by The Times, and here’s a link to The Lede’s coverage of the event, which includes some direct quotes from Pentagon officials justifying their decision.
February 27, 2008 at 11:57 pm
I remember learning about this free falling satellite back in November when it started falling. It could have done some serious damage had it really hit us. I’m glad we got rid of it, but we keep spending our money on things that may not or may need to be done. Hypocrtical?I don’t know.
February 28, 2008 at 10:47 am
I supposed if you were right underneath it could do “serious damage” but as Collins points out, there are literally thousands of things this size falling back into the earth’s atmosphere on a regular basis and thus far there have been no problems. The main difference between this and the other 17,000 objects hurtling toward us is that this one was filled with a somewhat unpleasant gas. But that’s my point, it was just unpleasant, not life threatening.
September 15, 2008 at 11:31 am
If it’s not life threatening I don’t understand the need to waste 60 million dollars, especially when there are so many other things out there that are life threatening and could use that 60 mil.
September 15, 2008 at 11:42 am
Personally i trust that the government has our personal best interests at heart, and if they deemed it necessary to shoot that satellite down then then have the money. And as for reinvesting it in eco-friendly satellites I don not believe that would be a worth while investment because there is no doubt that they would have to be scrapped eventually.
September 15, 2008 at 11:45 am
I think that’s a lot of money the government spent.I think 60 million dollars could be spent on better things.
September 16, 2008 at 8:44 am
i agree with the part of the longer life of the satellites. With my 60 million i would pay for college i mean jeez and i would just put the rest in the bank.
September 16, 2008 at 8:52 am
I think that’s crazy that their using all that money just to bring back a hunk of metal
September 16, 2008 at 11:40 am
After reading the blog and hearing about it last year in u.s. history. You did bring up a great point on how all of that money could go towards something else.