I find it quite staggering how nonchalant NASA, etc. are about this risk, and how cavalier they apparently were with human lives when they designed these things without a good way of bringing them down safely…

“So, Hubble weighs 26,000 lbs with no prop system and a decaying orbit… There was a design for a propulsion unit many years ago (before STS-125), but I don’t think anyone is executing on it.”

The docking/thrusting interface is now on the back of Hubble, left after the last servicing mission. That’s half the battle. Let’s assume the bird isn’t tumbling with any significant speed. Getting a thruster module onto a purpose-built capture interface was a problem solved by XSS-11, DART, Orbital Express, etc… to say nothing of Soyuz/ATV. Of course, if Hubble starts tumbling, lotsa luck.

“In my view, only a global organization setting global limits and standards for “burnability” or “waste disposal” will keep our skies and ourselves relatively safe.”

Oddly enough, the organization appears to be the FCC. After Orbital Sciences Corp. inadvertently led to the HAPS explosion, the fines from the FCC, and the threat of being denied licenses to transmit from comsats, led manufacturers to take the issue seriously. They started minding their hardware and procedures.

UARS was 5668 kg, so 5.67 tons (metric) or 6.25 tons (US).
ROSAT is 2,400 (wiki), so 2.40 tons (metric) or 2.65 tons (US).

If the quote concerns US tons, then ‘a little over 2′ doesn’t compare to ‘over 6′ as it suggests that .65 is less than .25.
If the quote concerns metric tons, then ‘a little over 2′ applies, but ‘over 6′ should be ‘over 5′.

As for astrology, I’ll stick with MY astrologer, Phil. For, he can inform me of the ONLY star of significance to my life, Sol. And he can inform me of events that are of import to the only planet of great interest and any impact on my life, Earth. And he can inform me of the movings and doings of the many stars, which do not impact my life, but teach us new things at an astonishing frequency.

That’s brilliant! Stupid, but also brilliant. Mind if I put a few instruments on the Gemini Ultra Sex Life Sat? You just worry about the money, launch costs and large enough solar panels (for the sex machine, of course.)

Perhaps a simple horoscope check before the next satellite launch is all that is needed — I mean, shouldn’t they check where the sun and moon and planets and stars are before they fling multi-million dollar hunks at them at astromical (whoops, I meant astrological) speeds? Makes sense!

Shoot, if astrology really works, then I can only surmise that satellites, being many orders of magnitude closer to us then the outer planets, have at least as great an effect on our lives. Why aren’t they launching satellites into strategically placed orbits that negate the “negative” traits of various planets and reinforce the “positives”? They could make everyone focused, creative, happy, loved, lucky, intelligent, and wealthy, all the time!

I’m going to get to work raising money to launch a Gemini Ultra Sex Life-sat

EDIT: I just realized that the inclination of ROSAT’s orbit is such that it won’t come down above a certain latitude, and of course the population of the Earth seems to be concentrated in equatorial areas. But still, I can’t imagine those odds getting higher then maybe one in 30,000. That’s still a far cry from the quoted number.

/Disclaimer: I suck at math. If someone sees where I’m screwing up, please tell me

Or, was it a spaceship with a baby inside?

ROSAT’s mirrors are 0.89 tonne of gilded Zerodur (no sweat to 850 C, softens around 1000 C). It will be orbit to ground impact intact, you betcha.

Now why would the shielding mean more parts surviving? The shields are meant to keep radiation off the mirrors, not to survive re-entry, so unless the shields are a refractory material I don’t see what it has to do with surviving the plunge.