This reminded me to go look up what Japan was doing with their space junk net. Turns out it failed to deploy in 2017, and nothing has really been done with the idea since. :|

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00945...

After some thinking, I've concluded that I'd actually like if there was a large collision that resulted in a chain reaction and took out most of the military and commercial satellites. It's obviously needed, in order for people to reassess their priorities, and whether additional garbage will be left with every mission.

(if we're imagining, without damage to ISS and scientific projects, of course)

What would it cost to deorbit those rogue and derelict 50 safely and with intentional consensus, maybe as a post-orbital insertion deployment secondary mission?

When will it be safe and cost-efficient to - instead of deorbiting toward Earth's atmosphere - Capture and Haul and Rendezvous and gently Land orbital scrap on non-earth locations like the Moon or Mars or a thrust-retrofitted asteroid for later processing?

Would ISS be more useful as an oxygen tank in earth-moon orbit than in Earth's atmosphere and ocean?

This sounds like a classic 80/20 rule (change the numbers to your liking). This applies to many things. Notable examples are the majority of misinformation on social media coming from a few people and a relatively small number of words getting you most of the way there when learning a language

[flagged]