{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0135424091233072, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.530232558139535, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Realities of Reentry Disposal

Recognizing that the projected growth in the number of satellites over the next few years threatens to increase the risk of on-orbit collisions, mission planners are voluntarily incorporating deorbit maneuvers in mission planning, and regulators are establishing requirements to reduce orbital lifetime for satellites in LEO orbits. Lifetime reduction can be achieved effectively for LEO satellites by lowering the perigee altitude, which increases atmospheric drag on the spacecraft and leads to random reentry and destruction of the hardware by reentry heating and loads. In these scenarios, the reentry breakup process is assumed to effectively dispose of major components of spacecraft hardware. However, the risk to people and property from satellite components that survive reentry, while small, may not be negligible as one might assume. Reentry survivability models have not been adequately tested against flight data and appear to underestimate component survivability. The scarcity of flight data has hindered improvement in aeroheating models at a time when good models are especially needed. Therefore, the hazard to people and property due to randomly reentering satellites, spent stages, and other manmade hardware should be factored into deorbit mission planning. Improved methods to predict and mitigate the hazard need to be developed and implemented.