New Long March 5B Uncontrolled Reentry Tracked by Aerospace's Experts(aerospace.org)
aerospace.org
New Long March 5B Uncontrolled Reentry Tracked by Aerospace's Experts
https://aerospace.org/article/new-long-march-5b-uncontrolled-reentry-tracked-aerospaces-experts
101 comments
This is deeply irresponsible by the CSNA and is a disaster just waiting to happen on the ground. Is it laziness on the part of their flight team or just crass disregard for others safety?
I'd chock it up under crass disregard for others safety. They drop boosters on their own people and don't care:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/china-keeps-dropping...
>China's defiance of this norm has resulted in some horrific scenes as its boosters have periodically crashed into villages.
>China's defiance of this norm has resulted in some horrific scenes as its boosters have periodically crashed into villages.
And possibly a fairing half dropped onto a populated area from a different launch yesterday:
https://twitter.com/cnspaceflight/status/1589289240776839168
https://twitter.com/cnspaceflight/status/1589289240776839168
"It's fine, we did tell everyone to evacuate" - I wonder how many actually evacuate / can afford to evacuate every time.
It's economically hardnosed of them. It's on average cheaper to just take the chance and pay off damages if someone is injured or killed. Remember, the highest chance of fatality will be in densely populated lower latitude countries where the monetary cost of killing someone is lower.
Two thirds of the planet is water. Most land is uninhabited. Population and property is concentrated in cities. The chance of debris hitting you is less than a lightning strike.
There is a difference between the chance of debris hitting a person and the chance of it hitting any person.
Regardless of the probability, there is a problem with choosing that risk for someone else without their consent.
Regardless of the probability, there is a problem with choosing that risk for someone else without their consent.
> Regardless of the probability, there is a problem with choosing that risk for someone else without their consent.
Every action we take imposes risks on other people.
Economic models are one of our best tools to use in weighing these risks against each other and the costs of mitigating them.
(OTOH: China's cost to mitigate most of these risks would be, generally, pretty small... It's a cost of being in the space game, IMO.)
Every action we take imposes risks on other people.
Economic models are one of our best tools to use in weighing these risks against each other and the costs of mitigating them.
(OTOH: China's cost to mitigate most of these risks would be, generally, pretty small... It's a cost of being in the space game, IMO.)
There is an enormous gulf between most kinds of harm one can do to someone in a different country on the other side of the world and dropping part of a rocket on them.
Nobody agrees a priori to China’s assessment of their economic value.
Nobody agrees a priori to China’s assessment of their economic value.
Even if you take the US assessment of the value of a person's life it probably doesn't make sense for China to do anything to control the entry of these stages.
It's simple if you use the Foreign Death Conversion Chart.
The won’t even pay for any damages. They would never allow one of these to reenter over US airspace or other large, powerful countries. But if it falls in the middle of some small country, tough luck getting paid for damages.
They are signatory to a treaty that requires them to pay for damages. And they had no control over where this booster came down (except that it would come down between 41S/41N, roughly), so your "they would never allow" is incorrect.
China signed the Outer Space Treaty. Your rocket your damage your bill.
But how is anyone going to collect on the bill, if China doesn't want to pay?
Just quickly and quietly paying is likely cheaper than the international incident, the "China refuses to comply with treaty" headlines, and likely resulting souring of international relations.
I agree. I’m all for China achieving things but this seems really inconsiderate and irresponsible. Dropping debris on populations is unacceptable as nearly happened over the last few years according to this story. Clashes with their environmental stance and desire to be responsible global power. Why?
I can't answer your question but be aware that you are looking through a very western lens, and probably US-centric lens particularly, and other cultures can see things in very different way, starting with assumptions (or simply unthought practices) that you have nothing to compare with.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This is China in a nutshell. They don't give a fuck about what's happening around them. Unless it Harms their economic interest. Other than that they do not have any compassion for safety, environment etc. It might change in the future, but with this crazy regime I doubt people ever gonna care about it.
Let's not make generalizations about a country of 1b+ people based on one aspect of their space program. You could easily draw an equally unflattering image of the US or any other nation if you're willing to extrapolate from a single datapoint like that.
charitable interpretation: “china” = “chinese government“ in the statement you are responding to.
I try to use the latter form myself when talking about nation state actions to aid people who have trouble translating from one to the other, but it doesn’t seem that hard to figure out in this case. otoh e.g. “the chinese value education highly” is a bit more ambiguous since the statement is true for both the chinese people and the chinese goverment
I try to use the latter form myself when talking about nation state actions to aid people who have trouble translating from one to the other, but it doesn’t seem that hard to figure out in this case. otoh e.g. “the chinese value education highly” is a bit more ambiguous since the statement is true for both the chinese people and the chinese goverment
This interpretation is a little better, but I think my objections still apply.
There are plenty of other data points that line up with this one though.
It is a calculated risk; perhaps similar to what have been done by the US and Russia when their space ambitions were at their highest.
The US and Russia didn't do this. Both space programs either used upper stages to boost into orbit or were small enough to burn up on reentry. The Long March 5B has a giant rocket 20 metric ton that is too big to burn up and falls to Earth in an uncontrolled fashion.
20 metric ton is roughly the same as Falcon Heavy center core(unloaded), for visual reference. It's not a random stage 2 left in orbit, it's the F9S1 coming down.
I was referring to them taking calculated risks; not doing exactly the same thing.
Dumping 20 tons of metal from orbit isn't a "calculated risk" its sloppy and dangerous. They could have built the rocket using 50 years of experience knowing this could be an issue, instead they just lie and say it will burn up. They already dropped one on a village.
the real issue is “what is the probability of human injury or death?” Is it 1% per launch? 0.01% 0.000001%
The area of the earth’s surface occupied by humans (not their stuff, but the people themselves) is around 8000 km^2 (1m^2 per person) out of a total Earth surface area of 510 million km^2. so the probability is around 1.6E-5 or 0.0016% per launch. This obviously doesn’t account for the specific trajectory or population distribution, but gives us a rough order of magnitude.
I would prefer they didn’t do it also, and it definitely loses them international good will - but it’s a pretty low (but non-zero) risk.
[typo corrected]
The area of the earth’s surface occupied by humans (not their stuff, but the people themselves) is around 8000 km^2 (1m^2 per person) out of a total Earth surface area of 510 million km^2. so the probability is around 1.6E-5 or 0.0016% per launch. This obviously doesn’t account for the specific trajectory or population distribution, but gives us a rough order of magnitude.
I would prefer they didn’t do it also, and it definitely loses them international good will - but it’s a pretty low (but non-zero) risk.
[typo corrected]
It's just a known issue that could be trivially avoided in the design phase. Even building for controlled reentry could have allowed them to accurately dump it in the ocean 100% of the time. It just super dick-ish to not do that and lie about every time you launch. The lie that the whole thing burns up on reentry is also super shitty and indefensible when these huge hunks of metal are trivially tracked by scientists and governments world wide.
> They already dropped one on a village.
That sounds pretty serious. Was there any official investigation or just ambiguous pictures posted on social media?
That sounds pretty serious. Was there any official investigation or just ambiguous pictures posted on social media?
It happened in May of 2020. The debris landed in Côte d'Ivoire and the debris was spotted in it’s way down by a local infrasound station. The debris was tracked in the atmosphere by multiple governments and there are photos. Google it for yourself.
I tried Googling for an official report or investigation but I couldn’t find one. Do you know if any of these multiple governments issued one?
Astro physicist Johnathan McDowell[1] was tracking it. I doubt the Cotes d'Ivoire did an official investigation due to their general lack of funds, and China denies that the Long March can even reenter the atmosphere so they didn't go check it out. Here's another story that references local reports[2]. An article from Ars quoting the US Space Force confirming entry over the Atlantic headed toward Cotes d'Ivoire[3].
What more do you want?
[1] https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1260222397350887425
[2] https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/13/21256484/china-rocket-deb...
[3] https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/large-chunks-of-a-ch...
What more do you want?
[1] https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1260222397350887425
[2] https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/13/21256484/china-rocket-deb...
[3] https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/large-chunks-of-a-ch...
Just anything more conclusive than social media posts. An actual investigation into these reports and purported debris fragments.
According to Wikipedia, Cotes d'Ivoire is one of the largest economies in West Africa, representing 40% of the total GDP of the Economic Community of West African States.
According to Wikipedia, Cotes d'Ivoire is one of the largest economies in West Africa, representing 40% of the total GDP of the Economic Community of West African States.
There are numerous scientists and government agencies on the record making official press releases claiming to have tracked the rocket debris to an area of Cotes d'Ivoire. There are photos in Cotes d'Ivoire of wreckage consistent with the rocket. Why do you need an "official investigation"? Who would you trust to do that? Why are you taking the word of the Chinese government?
The Verge article links to a 'local news site' afriksoir.net that looks really shady, similar to clickbait spam sites.
Registered on April 9th, 2019 with GoDaddy according to WHOIS.
It's top story today is just commenting on some Ivorian politican's Twitter feed https://afriksoir.net/lobognon-junte-goita-integrite-mali-jo...
And it's not linked to any established West African news organization.
This took me about 10 minutes of digging to uncover. So if Verge thinks this is a credible source that really speaks volumes.
Registered on April 9th, 2019 with GoDaddy according to WHOIS.
It's top story today is just commenting on some Ivorian politican's Twitter feed https://afriksoir.net/lobognon-junte-goita-integrite-mali-jo...
And it's not linked to any established West African news organization.
This took me about 10 minutes of digging to uncover. So if Verge thinks this is a credible source that really speaks volumes.
You really should learn more about the history of the US program before making such ill informed statements.
For example, some of the US Navy's Transit satellites in the early 1960s were powered by non-containerized SNAP RTG's (plutonium) destroyed when they de-orbited, releasing Pu-238 into the atmosphere.
The Cassini Mission was launched in 1997 with 72+ pounds of Pu aboard. NASA calculated the risks of 'inadvertent reentry' beforehand.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20030505132905/http://www.icsu-s...] [https://www.space4peace.org/articles/morenukesinspace.htm]
The Cassini Mission was launched in 1997 with 72+ pounds of Pu aboard. NASA calculated the risks of 'inadvertent reentry' beforehand.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20030505132905/http://www.icsu-s...] [https://www.space4peace.org/articles/morenukesinspace.htm]
It was wrong then and is wrong now.
Maybe; but the optics are terrible.
Ah, the good old “whatabout the US did it 50 years ago therefore we can do it today”. Also used to justify all sorts of atrocities, imperialism, IP theft, etc.
>"the US did it 50 years ago therefore we can do it today"
The US / or other countries for that matter "did it XXX years ago" to advance their goals and get more prosperous at the expense of the others. If you want to punish countries for doing similar things now it is totally ok, as long as you punish the same crimes committed earlier. The crime must be paid for. This of course will never happen so when you are trying to tell other countries that they should not be doing things that you've done yourself and got away with the only reasonable answer you can expect is fuck you very much.
The US / or other countries for that matter "did it XXX years ago" to advance their goals and get more prosperous at the expense of the others. If you want to punish countries for doing similar things now it is totally ok, as long as you punish the same crimes committed earlier. The crime must be paid for. This of course will never happen so when you are trying to tell other countries that they should not be doing things that you've done yourself and got away with the only reasonable answer you can expect is fuck you very much.
If you punish every country retroactively for crimes committed ages ago, every country would cease to exist. There is no country without blood on its hands, historically. This is like saying that you should go to jail because your grandfather jaywalked 80 years ago, which was not a crime back then but is now.
Starting with the people who are still alive would be a good idea. I think you can find plenty of people responsible for modern wars/other crimes against humanity after WWII. The end of WWII also marks the "official" punishment as in Nuremberg trials.
This is not "your grandfather jaywalked" case but pretty rational I think. But you know where it will end up when for example our "leader" the US had declared that it does not recognize ICC, and will take any measures starting with sanctions and including force if it ever gets prosecuted. The other countries take it as an example. Cant blame them for not buying into that do as I say bullshit.
This is not "your grandfather jaywalked" case but pretty rational I think. But you know where it will end up when for example our "leader" the US had declared that it does not recognize ICC, and will take any measures starting with sanctions and including force if it ever gets prosecuted. The other countries take it as an example. Cant blame them for not buying into that do as I say bullshit.
I also think there is a somewhat hyperbolic anti-China sentiment in the commentary on all of this. Plus a perhaps frustration at the US Space authorities on the lack of communication from their Chinese counterpart, something of course they themselves are entirely to blame for.
Anyway; the Chinese have done a few of these "uncontrolled reentries" now. All crashing into the ocean; so they are either very lucky or it is not so uncontrolled after all.
Anyway; the Chinese have done a few of these "uncontrolled reentries" now. All crashing into the ocean; so they are either very lucky or it is not so uncontrolled after all.
Regardless of the sentiments of the criticism, the fact is it’s irresponsible on the China part. You seem to downplay that fact. If you want to be balanced that’s the first thing you’d need to acknowledge. And no, it is uncontrolled. No questions about it.
No matter how small the risk, countries have to make plan, allocate resources, keeping track of the rocket’s path, in case it does happen. They can’t just pray. Spain briefly closed part of their airspace, delaying 300 flights. Who is responsible for that?
https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/spain-briefly-clos...
No matter how small the risk, countries have to make plan, allocate resources, keeping track of the rocket’s path, in case it does happen. They can’t just pray. Spain briefly closed part of their airspace, delaying 300 flights. Who is responsible for that?
https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/spain-briefly-clos...
Reports suggest that they require only 3 launches in this configuration LM5B where the core stage falls back, for the construction of their station. They might have made the assumption that chances of damage due to debris is very low considering that only 3 launches are to happen with this configuration.
In case even if there is damage on the ground, there are treaties that govern the liabilities in case.
It would be interesting to know why they technically chose this particular way of doing it, but the discussion seems too hyperbolic for that.
In case even if there is damage on the ground, there are treaties that govern the liabilities in case.
It would be interesting to know why they technically chose this particular way of doing it, but the discussion seems too hyperbolic for that.
> In case even if there is damage on the ground, there are treaties that govern the liabilities in case.
If it fell on your house with you sleeping inside I'm sure the liabilities treaties would make your family be totally ok with it.
If it fell on your house with you sleeping inside I'm sure the liabilities treaties would make your family be totally ok with it.
When governments, including your own make these kinds of decisions they do not give a flying fuck about your particular family. They only car if it will cost them election, loosing giant lawsuit etc.
Kind of wonder how it'd go, if the rocket accidentally took out the head of a mafia family or some equally dangerous group. ;)
Chances of not hitting land after n completely random reentriees is (71%)^n. That drops fairly fast.
You’re down into single digit percentage by the time n hits 7 in that case. What are we at, 4th re-entry? So 25% chance it lands in water given your formula. Given Chinese superstitions around the number 4, let’s hope this one has a safe and wet splashdown.
That’s not how the stats work. There’s a 71% chance it lands in water this time (and every time). If you flip heads 3 times in a row, it doesn’t mean you’re more likely to flip tails next time.
That's a five year-olds uninformed take because you assume it could land anywhere on earth, hence 71% water....
Orbital mechanics does not work that way (except for a polar orbit). It's covering a particular band of the surface that it could land on if uncontrolled.
Orbital mechanics does not work that way (except for a polar orbit). It's covering a particular band of the surface that it could land on if uncontrolled.
My understanding is that this is more of the equivalent of making sure you land on heads all 3 times. In that case it’s a 1/8th on 3 coin flips, no?
> My understanding is that this is more of the equivalent of making sure you land on heads all 3 times
Yep!
Yep!
That is just a bold faced lie that 2 seconds of googling would prove you wrong.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/china-keeps-dropping...
https://www.newsweek.com/photos-show-rocket-debris-india-chi...
Anyway; I don’t know if you are an Astro turfing troll or just that brainwashed.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/china-keeps-dropping...
https://www.newsweek.com/photos-show-rocket-debris-india-chi...
Anyway; I don’t know if you are an Astro turfing troll or just that brainwashed.
One of them hit Côte d’Ivoire.
Do you have a link to an official investigation/report on this?
Neither. There just isn't that big a fraction of the earth's surface that's inhabited. You should regard this similarly to someone firing a gun into the air.
If you fired a gun into the air in the UK I'm pretty sure that a) You'd get in pretty serious trouble for it by itself and b) if you killed or injured someone that trouble would be significantly multiplied to the extent you'd end up in prison. I think it would be a manslaughter charge.
In most areas of the US recklessly discharging a firearm into the air would also get you in serious trouble (even in rural areas) along with a (lesser) murder charge if you killed someone.
FWIW, according to a study published by the National Library of Medicine, "celebratory gunfire" accounts for 4.6% of all stray bullet-related deaths and injuries:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22743389/
FWIW, according to a study published by the National Library of Medicine, "celebratory gunfire" accounts for 4.6% of all stray bullet-related deaths and injuries:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22743389/
Right. Just as with the space debris, it should be illegal and prosecuted but it's quite unlikely to actually kill someone when only performed a few times. It's the habit you have to prevent.
As if two wrongs somehow make it right!
Uncontrolled re-entry of any debris likely to reach the ground without burning up is a bad idea. So is blowing anything up in orbit (creating huge hazards for other spacecraft).
These are bad ideas no matter who does them and the fact that anyone did so in the past is not an excuse for continuing the bad behavior.
Uncontrolled re-entry of any debris likely to reach the ground without burning up is a bad idea. So is blowing anything up in orbit (creating huge hazards for other spacecraft).
These are bad ideas no matter who does them and the fact that anyone did so in the past is not an excuse for continuing the bad behavior.
I think pulling the whataboutism card may have worked in the past, but today people realize it's just a really bad defense for when you have nothing sensible to reply with, after facts, inconvenient truths, and plain hypocrisy has been pointed out.
It's simply not the ace up the sleeve people think it is.
It's simply not the ace up the sleeve people think it is.
My flight from the Canary Islands to Portugal was delayed for ~2 hours because of this. Everyone was a bit on edge and it seems extremely irresponsible, dangerous, and wasteful.
[deleted]
That's a major overreaction.
Not according to the ESA[1], NASA[1], Portugese airspace authorities, or our captain. Or my dad, for that matter, who works for NASA (some of his projects specifically involve space debris cleanup). But thanks for your input, random internet stranger.
[1] https://www.space.com/nasa-esa-space-chiefs-condemn-china-ro...
[1] https://www.space.com/nasa-esa-space-chiefs-condemn-china-ro...
Nowhere in that rather bombastic report did I see any argument justifying altering any airline flight due to the reentry.
It may not say it directly but the implication is clear, in that uncontrolled re-entry is dangerous to anything that might cross its path, including people, infrastructure, planes, and pigeons if they’re really unlucky.
That's not a sufficient argument. Something can be dangerous without being sufficiently dangerous to warrant any personal action. In this case, I believe if you calculate you will find the chance of an aircraft being damaged was so extremely slight that it wasn't worth delaying any flight.
[deleted]
Better be safe than sorry. Uncontrollable entry is actually uncontrollable and anything could happen.
Such decisions cannot be made in a binary, absolutist way. Risk is reduced to some minimal level, not to zero. The risk here was very low.
And you know this risk was low because? Are you saying that you had more information on this than those agencies tracking the reentry? Otherwise you are speculating.
Those agencies tracking reentry also are of the opinion that the risk to any individual is negligble: see e.g. https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1587858672373403654
Duh - it's going to come down in one place. The odds of "any" one individual being in that exact place is negligible.
On the other hand, where it comes down is under it's flight path, which is a predictable series of points on a line, ordered in time. If you (or your airplane) happen to be in one of those points at the same time, your odds go way way up (for a few minutes). The flight in question was no doubt going to be under the boosters flight path. You know this ahead of time, and you can obviously delay with minimal consequence (minimal compared to an airliner being hit with falling debris, anyway.) In that situation, it'd be negligent to say 'screw it, the odds are in our favor, lets just ignore it.'
NASA's policy is to avoid uncontrolled reentry when the chance of killing someone is greater than 10^-4.
How valuable is that? We can determine that using the concept of the "statistical value of a human life". For example, the NRC assigns a human life a statistical value of $9M when determining of the cost of some nuclear safety improvement is justified. This is similar to the value used for determining if traffic safety improvements are worthwhile or if medical procedures are justified.
Multiplying, this is saying that it's unacceptable that the cost of a reentry be as a little as $900. This seems quite unreasonable: the cost of avoiding uncontrolled entry should often be much higher than this. And indeed, if you look at what NASA actually does, it often gives wavers of this requirement. This tells me the requirement is of dubious legitimacy, existing more for PR purposes than because it's good policy.
I doubt the Chinese care about the political optics enough to waste their time avoiding such a low expected cost outcome. Nor should airlines cancel flights to avoid something like that either -- the cost far exceeds the expected benefit.
How valuable is that? We can determine that using the concept of the "statistical value of a human life". For example, the NRC assigns a human life a statistical value of $9M when determining of the cost of some nuclear safety improvement is justified. This is similar to the value used for determining if traffic safety improvements are worthwhile or if medical procedures are justified.
Multiplying, this is saying that it's unacceptable that the cost of a reentry be as a little as $900. This seems quite unreasonable: the cost of avoiding uncontrolled entry should often be much higher than this. And indeed, if you look at what NASA actually does, it often gives wavers of this requirement. This tells me the requirement is of dubious legitimacy, existing more for PR purposes than because it's good policy.
I doubt the Chinese care about the political optics enough to waste their time avoiding such a low expected cost outcome. Nor should airlines cancel flights to avoid something like that either -- the cost far exceeds the expected benefit.
The remains of the rocket have landed somewhere in the pacific ocean.
Genuinely curious - why is China doing uncontrolled reentry any different? As far as I understand it the vast majority of rockets have uncontrolled re-entry, save for spaceplanes, falcon 9, and more recently electron.
Several nuances:
"Controlled reentry" isn't necessarily synonymous with "booster recovery". Most rockets have a way to deorbit the upper stage once its job is done, either by firing the main engine retrograde, or using a small dedicated deorbit motor. By firing the motor about half an orbit before the projected reentry point, you can control exactly when and where the stage will reenter the atmosphere, hence controlled reentry.
Second, the Long March 5B is somewhat unique among rockets in that its large main stage stays with the payload all the way until orbital insertion. Most other rockets drop a large majority of their bulk long before it has enough energy to stay in orbit for any appreciable amount of time. Probably the closest comparison in this category is the space shuttle's big orange external tank, as it provides fuel for the main engines until just a hair below orbital velocity, but it's subsequently jettisoned and the orbit is completed using the shuttle's onboard thrusters.
So you have a combination of (no deorbit capability) and (big tank floating in orbit) that results in (big tank crashing down at an arbitrary location whenever it feels like coming down to earth).
"Controlled reentry" isn't necessarily synonymous with "booster recovery". Most rockets have a way to deorbit the upper stage once its job is done, either by firing the main engine retrograde, or using a small dedicated deorbit motor. By firing the motor about half an orbit before the projected reentry point, you can control exactly when and where the stage will reenter the atmosphere, hence controlled reentry.
Second, the Long March 5B is somewhat unique among rockets in that its large main stage stays with the payload all the way until orbital insertion. Most other rockets drop a large majority of their bulk long before it has enough energy to stay in orbit for any appreciable amount of time. Probably the closest comparison in this category is the space shuttle's big orange external tank, as it provides fuel for the main engines until just a hair below orbital velocity, but it's subsequently jettisoned and the orbit is completed using the shuttle's onboard thrusters.
So you have a combination of (no deorbit capability) and (big tank floating in orbit) that results in (big tank crashing down at an arbitrary location whenever it feels like coming down to earth).
> As far as I understand it the vast majority of rockets have uncontrolled
I don't think that's true anymore. There's a Danish radio program[1] that talked about this and apparently China is the only country/operator that still have uncontrolled reentry rocket stages. Everyone else have committed to controlled reentry.
Looking that the possible places where the rocket can hit populated areas. It looks like they went out of their way to ensure maximum coverage of Africa. Reentry a little earlier and they would have been almost ensured that it would hit the Atlantic Ocean.
[1]: https://www.radio4.dk/program/den-nye-rumalder/?gid=43389&ti...
I don't think that's true anymore. There's a Danish radio program[1] that talked about this and apparently China is the only country/operator that still have uncontrolled reentry rocket stages. Everyone else have committed to controlled reentry.
Looking that the possible places where the rocket can hit populated areas. It looks like they went out of their way to ensure maximum coverage of Africa. Reentry a little earlier and they would have been almost ensured that it would hit the Atlantic Ocean.
[1]: https://www.radio4.dk/program/den-nye-rumalder/?gid=43389&ti...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-022-01718-8
>In 2020, over 60% of launches to low Earth orbit resulted in a rocket body being abandoned in orbit
>In the USA, the Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices (ODMSPs) apply to all launches and require that the risk of a casualty from a reentering rocket body is below a 1-in-10,000 threshold4. However, the US Air Force waived the ODMSP requirements for 37 of the 66 launches conducted for it between 2011 and 2018, on the basis that it would be too expensive to replace non-compliant rockets with compliant ones
I do think China's space program is more irresponsible than USA/EU launches based on some of the debris fall, but blaming uncontrolled re-entry seems like the wrong thing here
>In 2020, over 60% of launches to low Earth orbit resulted in a rocket body being abandoned in orbit
>In the USA, the Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices (ODMSPs) apply to all launches and require that the risk of a casualty from a reentering rocket body is below a 1-in-10,000 threshold4. However, the US Air Force waived the ODMSP requirements for 37 of the 66 launches conducted for it between 2011 and 2018, on the basis that it would be too expensive to replace non-compliant rockets with compliant ones
I do think China's space program is more irresponsible than USA/EU launches based on some of the debris fall, but blaming uncontrolled re-entry seems like the wrong thing here
It's that it's uncontrolled re-entry of a giant first stage. No one does anything like that except China.
LatteLazy(1)