49
submitted 1 year ago by btaf45@lemmy.world to c/astronomy@mander.xyz
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Wood seems like a good choice for a satellite - it's lightweight, easy to machine into different shapes, it's cheap and readily available. It also doesn't conduct heat as well as aluminum or steel, but I don't know enough about building satellites to know if that's a problem.

[-] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 year ago

Less toxic when it burns up in the atmosphere at reentry.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Plus, it's less likely to become space trash.

[-] zaphod@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago
[-] Nommer@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Because it is less ductile and flexible than aluminum or titanium. It's easier to decommission by burning it up in the atmosphere without leaving particles behind, and if it collides with another object, it's more likely to be obliterated.

this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
49 points (100.0% liked)

Astronomy

4026 readers
242 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS