It didn't reenter and somehow fail to burn up. It was captured from orbit and brought back by the space shuttle.<p>Still a very interesting analysis.
That's one capability that was lost with the space shuttle. There's nothing remaining nor planned that can bring something that size back from LEO.<p>I feel like materials science could learn a lot more about radiation embrittlement and high energy micro impacts.<p>The space shuttle is often regarded as a huge mistake and in many ways (reusability especially, it was more like rebuildability :) ) it was, but it was still hell of a machine.
> That's one capability that was lost with the space shuttle. There's nothing remaining nor planned that can bring something that size back from LEO.<p>Surely the X-37 could be used to bring a satellite down, even if it's not an acknowledged capability?
The X-37 is tiny, it’s only 5 tonnes itself. But one of the uses is probably to bring back smaller satellites to determine how long term exposure in space has affected them.
only a very tiny one at most
<i>I feel like materials science could learn a lot more about radiation embrittlement and high energy micro impacts.</i><p>They do those experiments on the ISS: <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/materials-international-space-station-experiment-x-misse-x/" rel="nofollow">https://www.nasa.gov/materials-international-space-station-e...</a>
Starship might be capable, once it gets the "chomper" cargo bay. Would require custom hardware though.
Even the article's author seems confused:<p>> one of the very few satellites to have returned from its mission in space intact<p>This makes it sounds like it was due to great luck rather than human decision. It's in fact one of the very few satellites that it was decided to have retrieved (intact) from space (at significant expense) rather than letting it deorbit and burn up on re-entry.
Interesting study but it sounds like the satellite was captured in the early 1990s, exhibited in a museum for a decade or two, and only x-rayed in 2016. I’m not sure if the defects they found can be attributed to the space environment or wear and tear from sitting in a museum.
I would highly recommend reading the materials about <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Duration_Exposure_Facility" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Duration_Exposure_Facilit...</a>, which is dedicated for material exposure research in the space.
This is very interesting:<p>> The Space Exposed Experiment Developed for Students (SEEDS) allowed students the opportunity to grow control and experimental tomato seeds that had been exposed on LDEF comparing and reporting the results. 12.5 million seeds were flown, and students from elementary to graduate school returned 8000 reports to NASA. The L.A. Times misreported that a DNA mutation from space exposure could yield a poisonous fruit. Whilst incorrect, the report served to raise awareness of the experiment and generate discussion.[17] Space seeds germinated sooner and grew faster than the control seeds. They were also more porous than terrestrial seeds.<p>Wonder why?
This kind of reads like an investigation of some unknown object. Seems like the intent is to better understand how the thing was affected during use and on re-entry and improve future reusable craft.
Guys,<p>I watched all the alien movies.<p>We should not trust those things that come from outside planet Earth ...
Please this is not reddit
Good reason to x-ray it!
Space is vast, and we conflate very different parts of it.<p>Other solar systems and their hypothetical risks are not the same as as cislunar space or LEO.
What are you talking about? This was in LEO for only a year and was returned to Earth by space shuttle Endeavor - over 30 years ago.<p>I assume you read the article, so I’ll suggest re-reading the second paragraph more closely.