from the gonna-be-a-long-time-'till-touchdown-brings-me-round-again dept.
Uncontrolled rocket descents pose a 10% risk of killing one or more people over the next ten years:
A quartet of researchers at the University of British Columbia in Canada has calculated that the risk of one or more people being killed by uncontrolled rocket descents over the next decade is approximately 10%. In their paper published in the journal Nature Astronomy, Michael Byers, Ewan Wright, Aaron Boley and Cameron Byers, describe their study of casualty risk in the coming years due to rocket parts falling from the sky and what governments could do to make spaceflight safer for people on the ground.
Over the past several decades, rocket parts, satellites and even space stations have fallen back to the Earth after fulfilling their missions. To date, no one has ever been killed by falling space debris, though one person is believed to have been struck: Lottie Williams was hit by debris while walking in a park in 1997. But as the space age has matured, more rockets and satellites have been sent aloft, and that trend is expected to continue. In this new effort, the researchers calculated the likelihood of one or more people being struck or killed by such objects if current practices continue.
The researchers looked at the current number of rocket launches and the number expected to go up over the next decade. They also looked at what happens to rocket parts when they fall back to Earth and where they tend to land. The researchers found, as expected, that the majority fall into the ocean, because it covers so much of the planet. But they also found that as the number of rockets launched rises, so does the chance of one or more of them coming down in a populated area—they report that the chance of one or more fatalities in the coming decade is approximately 10%.
Journal Reference:
Byers, Michael, Wright, Ewan, Boley, Aaron, et al. Unnecessary risks created by uncontrolled rocket reentries [open], Nature Astronomy (DOI: 10.1038/s41550-022-01718-8)
Related Stories
Sheep farmers find large pieces of debris including serial numbers after a loud bang was heard earlier this month.
It is believed to be space junk from the first manned SpaceX mission to the International Space Station.
Story: Space junk potentially found in NSW Snowy Mountains paddocks
A large piece of debris found in the middle of a sheep paddock could be space junk from a SpaceX mission, and linked to a large bang heard across the region earlier this month.
Many of those who heard the bang on July 9 took to social media to report it across the Snowy Mountains in southern NSW, and as far away as Albury, Wagga Wagga and Canberra.
Speculation was rife that it may have been caused by the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft re-entering earth's atmosphere after it launched in November 2020.
Mick Miners, who runs a sheep farm at Numbla Vale, south of Jindabyne, stumbled across an almost three metre high object wedged into a remote part of his paddock on Monday.
[...] Australian National University College of Science astrophysicist Brad Tucker said the debris was most likely from the unpressurised crew trunk of the craft.
He said it was possibly the largest piece of documented debris in Australia since NASA's Skylab space station came plummeting back to Earth above Esperance in Western Australia in 1979.
It appears to either be a piece of space junk, or an early prototype Firstborn Monolith [hubie].
See also: Uncontrolled Rocket Descents Pose a 10% Risk of Killing One or More People Over the Next 10 Years
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bradley13 on Friday July 15 2022, @07:41AM (7 children)
To calculate this, they had to pile assumptions on top of assumptions. Which is fun and all, but one cannot take it seriously.
Then, a 10% chance of a fatal accident in 10 years? More people die slipping on banana peels when the moon is full. That's such a low level of danger thay any additional mitigation cannot be worth the effort.
Publish-or-perish at work again...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2022, @12:12PM (1 child)
I'm sure this is useful to actuaries, and the whole issue of who is criminally or civilly liable is, I believe, not really settled. If something comes down and destroys your property (or you), how's it going to be treated if you don't have specific "space debris" insurance? It isn't an "act of God or war" that can be hand-waived away.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Friday July 15 2022, @02:04PM
It does need to be settled, but I would assume responsibility will likely lie with whoever owns the falling debris. Which should be relatively easy to ascertain for anything large enough to reach the ground.
Basically, just like if a runaway car rolls down a hill and slams into something, the operator of the car that failed to park it in a safe manner is going to be responsible for the damage.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Nuke on Friday July 15 2022, @12:41PM (3 children)
What are you saying - that no-one should tackle this calculation?
I have worked in safety assessment where there are always a lot of assumptions that must be made, but the aim is still to get to a best estimate of risk. There are such concepts as probabilities of probabilities for example. A huge amount of finance hinges on these matters, not just insurance but also how much money it is worth spending on safety features like sea and flood defences. Even to do nothing, as you favour, has to be justified by calculations - maybe in this case it does.
There is also the matter of property damage. For example, the roof of my house has about a thousand times the target area of my person.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday July 15 2022, @02:09PM
Yeah, but that's a slightly different analysis - there you want the expected damage costs from each piece of equipment you put up. The expected damage costs from *all* equipment, including equipment you have no connection to, is completely irrelevant to you.
(Score: 1) by SomeRandomGeek on Friday July 15 2022, @05:23PM
The way these things are usually done is to place a value on human life. Currently about $7.5 million USD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#:~:text=In%20Western%20countries%20and%20other,US%247.5%20million%20in%202020. [wikipedia.org]
So, if there is a way to spend $750k each year that completely eliminates the loss of life due to falling space debris, then it is worth doing so.
If not, the value of the lives saved is not worth the cost.
If you find that callus, remember that there are other ways to spend money that actually will save lives.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday July 15 2022, @11:54PM
Ooohh, now that's the sexy stuff. Say it again! Say it again! ;)
I sometimes think about how a lot of predictions are based on current known science and what the probabilities are that some other scientific phenomena are discovered that change the outcomes. Suppose one day gravity suddenly started behaving differently on our planet, for example.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday July 15 2022, @02:03PM
Amusingly, the wisdom of crowds is a real thing. The response people should have to this paper is not to throw it in the bin, but to come up with their own estimation, and then pool all those estimates. Take the (geometric) mean of them all, and you're much more likely to have an accurate figure. Which will almost certainly still be practically useless, of course, as I'm guessing the spread of values will be very wide.
But if we can be happy it's nothing to seriously worry about any time soon, that's an actionable result - the action being "do nothing".
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by MIRV888 on Friday July 15 2022, @10:35AM
Hallelujah!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Snotnose on Friday July 15 2022, @01:31PM (1 child)
These assholes launch from the middle of their country, where they know that not only will a borked launch land on people, but even with a good launch their boosters will fall on people.
I just passed a drug test. My dealer has some explaining to do.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday July 15 2022, @09:25PM
. . . and it has actually happened to their people!
How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
(Score: 5, Funny) by Thexalon on Friday July 15 2022, @01:55PM (2 children)
Uncontrolled rocket descents have been killing people since the very beginnings of rocketry: Just ask Wernher von Braun! He aimed at the stars, but for some reason kept on hitting London instead.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday July 15 2022, @09:26PM
Poor Wernher von Braun. At least Bezos aimed for the moon but for some reason couldn't get anything into orbit.
How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2022, @10:23PM
...and von Braun's (figurative) descendants are landing rockets on all sorts of people in Ukraine (and Russia too), every day. Many of them even explode (but not all).