Junk from a SpaceX Dragon 'trunk' may have crashed into a Canadian farmer's field (photos)
If confirmed, it wouldn't be the first time a chunk of Crew Dragon trunk crashed to Earth.
![a person standing beside a very large piece of debris. the debris is charred and roughly the same width as a person's height](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kQYsTb9jUt4fjh7Gw3rBZk-320-80.jpg)
Pieces of a SpaceX spacecraft might have landed in Saskatchewan.
A charred piece of debris, possibly from a SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft, was found in a Canadian farmer's field in a town northeast of Regina, one of the largest cities in the prairie province.
"We knew it came from the sky, because it couldn’t get there by itself," Barry Sawchuk, owner of the land on which it fell, told the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of the charred and giant black piece he discovered while seeding in late April.
CBC News, which also interviewed Sawchuk, said the fragment was six feet (two meters) wide and weighs 90 pounds (40 kg). SpaceX has not confirmed whether the debris is from them, but a ground track from a Crew Dragon "trunk" (storage compartment) re-entry in February suggests it is plausible.
Related: SpaceX counters FAA claims that its reentering Starlink satellites could hurt or kill people
Jonathan McDowell, who tracks space launches and re-entries, posted on X (formerly Twitter) that the trunk from the private Axiom Space Ax-3 mission fell over Saskatchewan on Feb. 26.
"Looks like bits of it have been found on the ground," wrote McDowell, who is also an astrophysicist with the Harvard & Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, of the SpaceX trunk.
Get the Space.com Newsletter
Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!
Saskatchewan has rather deep snow and no crops grow there during the winter, both of which mean that Sawchuck would not have spotted the debris until planting season came around and he was working in the fields.
If confirmed, this would not be the first time a trunk made it through Earth's atmosphere. Back in August 2022, a fragment from Dragon was found in a rural Australian sheep paddock (the find was confirmed by SpaceX and the Australian Space Agency).
Benjamin Reed, senior director of SpaceX's human spaceflight program, addressed the debris during a livestreamed NASA Crew-5 press briefing that August. He said there were "no injuries, no damage" associated with the reports and that the debris fell in "an expected path of where things may come down."
"We use models that are ultimately approved, to predict and plan for these things," added Reed, emphasizing SpaceX works closely with NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration or FAA (which licenses launches in the United States) with such matters.
"The trunk segment … typically burns up in the atmosphere over the open ocean posing minimal risk to public safety," the FAA added in its own statement to CNN at the time.
Debris from a SpaceX launch in April 2021 was also found on a central Washington farm, although this one was from the second stage of a Falcon 9 rocket. The Grant County Sheriff's Office confirmed it was SpaceX hardware, although the California company did not respond to comment back then.
Space debris, if it causes injuries or damage, technically can be covered under a section of the United Nations' Outer Space Treaty popularly known as the Space Liability Convention.
A claim under that treaty has only been invoked once, after the nuclear-powered Soviet Kosmos 954 satellite fell in the far north of Canada in 1978, requiring years of pricey cleanup in the ecologically sensitive area that is home to numerous Indigenous groups. Moscow settled with the Canadian government for $3 million CAD in 1981; that's roughly $10 million CAD today, or $7.3 million USD with current exchange rates.
Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: [email protected].
Elizabeth Howell (she/her), Ph.D., is a staff writer in the spaceflight channel since 2022 covering diversity, education and gaming as well. She was contributing writer for Space.com for 10 years before joining full-time. Elizabeth's reporting includes multiple exclusives with the White House and Office of the Vice-President of the United States, an exclusive conversation with aspiring space tourist (and NSYNC bassist) Lance Bass, speaking several times with the International Space Station, witnessing five human spaceflight launches on two continents, flying parabolic, working inside a spacesuit, and participating in a simulated Mars mission. Her latest book, "Why Am I Taller?", is co-written with astronaut Dave Williams. Elizabeth holds a Ph.D. and M.Sc. in Space Studies from the University of North Dakota, a Bachelor of Journalism from Canada's Carleton University and a Bachelor of History from Canada's Athabasca University. Elizabeth is also a post-secondary instructor in communications and science at several institutions since 2015; her experience includes developing and teaching an astronomy course at Canada's Algonquin College (with Indigenous content as well) to more than 1,000 students since 2020. Elizabeth first got interested in space after watching the movie Apollo 13 in 1996, and still wants to be an astronaut someday. Mastodon: https://qoto.org/@howellspace
-
Unclear Engineer Reading this article and others linked to, it seem to indicate that space junk hitting the ground is going to be an increasing hazard as the launch tempo picks up. Even the "reusable" SpaceX vehicles seem to have some throw-away parts that sometimes survive reentry. A 6' long, 90 pound thing falling out of the sky at a random location is not a trivial hazard. As the rate of occurrence happens, it may not remain a trivial risk to people on Earth.Reply -
Meteoric Marmot
The reality is that companies will continue to allow this to happen as long as it's cheaper than doing something to prevent it. With the launch cadence that SpaceX is doing, it is inevitable that they are going to drop a piece of junk somewhere bad and kill someone.Unclear Engineer said:Reading this article and others linked to, it seem to indicate that space junk hitting the ground is going to be an increasing hazard as the launch tempo picks up. Even the "reusable" SpaceX vehicles seem to have some throw-away parts that sometimes survive reentry. A 6' long, 90 pound thing falling out of the sky at a random location is not a trivial hazard. As the rate of occurrence happens, it may not remain a trivial risk to people on Earth.
They need to be forced to change their procedures to ensure that this doesn't happen. If the government(s) won't step up, then let's hope that the death(s) occur in the United States of Litigation so that the perpetrator can be sued into oblivion. -
billslugg There is no such thing as "doesn't happen" or "zero chance of something happening". All probabilities of falling debris injuring a human are calculated, expressed in mathematical terms and kept within agreed bounds. FAA will not issue a license otherwise.Reply -
Unclear Engineer
Bill,billslugg said:There is no such thing as "doesn't happen" or "zero chance of something happening". All probabilities of falling debris injuring a human are calculated, expressed in mathematical terms and kept within agreed bounds. FAA will not issue a license otherwise.
The question raised by this and the other articles is whether the calculated risk level is the actual risk level.
Risk models require a lot of assumptions, along with a lot of data. There is uncertainty in both, and often errors, too. And, the models are usually "incomplete" - that is, they miss some parts of the total risk - sometimes the biggest parts.
For example, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission long "guestimated" that the probability of a nuclear fission reactor core melting as "one in a million" per reactor per year of operation, but, when they actually contracted for MIT to make a risk model, it came out much higher than that. After fixing some of the biggest contributors to the total in the calculation, the result was still 10 times "one in a million". Fast forward some decades, and we are now in an era when there are lots of risk models being used for lots of nuclear fission power reactors, and those reactors and their models have been modified to produce probability estimates that are again "one in a million" or even a few tenths of that.
However, we have now had enough actual power reactors operate for enough years, and enough of them have actually melted their cores, that we now have statistical evidence that the current model calculations are too low by a factor of about 1000!
The lesson to take from that is not that we need to multiply other risk calculation results by 1000, but rather that we need to do some serious reality checking on the results of such models. The usual calculation of uncertainty ranges (e.g., 95% confidence that the real answer is within +/- x%) are typically not reliably bounding the real answer. The calculated uncertainty is usually too small.
And, then there is the question of what is an acceptable answer. There are now about 8 billion people on Earth. IF the "acceptable risk" is limited to "one in a million per person per year", then it would be "acceptable" to have falling space junk kill 8,000 people per year. But, is that really socially acceptable?
On the other hand, requiring that the space junk have a probability of less than one in million per year of killing a single person on Earth would be unattainable, and would put the individual risk at some absurdly low value like one in 8,000,000,000,000,000 (8 quadrillion for U.S. definition of "quadrillion").
Even the frequency of killing less than one person per year may not be the reality for much longer, assuming it is, now. That would require the probability per person to be less than "1.25 in 10 billion per year".
And, that would need to be the total for everything launched, all taken together. If the FAA is doing its calculations only on a per launch basis, then the total is really not being addressed. As humans increase the launch rate to hundreds of times the historical rate, it is important to consider what the total is becoming.
So, what is realistic for the amount of risk to be allowed from falling space junk? Currently, it is surely smaller than the risks of crashing airplanes to people on the ground, because we have statistics that prove that much. But, we also have procedures and regulations that are intended to reduce aircraft crash hazards to people on the ground.
It is a social/political question that will be addressed in a social/political manner. And, that will probably be steered more by emotion than quantitative risk assessment, once somebody actually gets seriously hurt or killed by falling space junk. -
Meteoric Marmot
That's simply not true. There are numerous ways to ensure that objects burn up long before hitting the ground. The simplest is that you make the item in small pieces and attach them together in such a way that the pieces will separate when subjected to re-entry temperatures. There also exists the very expensive option of adding enough Δv to put the object into a solar orbit so that it never re-enters.billslugg said:There is no such thing as "doesn't happen" or "zero chance of something happening". All probabilities of falling debris injuring a human are calculated, expressed in mathematical terms and kept within agreed bounds. FAA will not issue a license otherwise.
As for the FAA, US government agencies are notorious for not caring what happens when it doesn't affect the US directly.
The "problem" is that these methods cost money and no commercial operator is going to spend that money unless forced to by the government. -
billslugg Yes, it is correct that there are numerous ways of insuring things burn up before they hit the ground but that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about a total risk assessment. Given that we try to safely deorbit our rockets, we must still calculate the odds that the deorbit procedure would fail. There will be accidents. Nothing is risk free. As far as I know, it is only the Chinese who send stuff up there with no consideration whatsoever for where it comes down. Current US rockets go up only after calculation of the odds. My original point is they do not use "zero chance" as their benchmark since it is not obtainable. Your insistence they do is unrealistic.Reply -
Meteoric Marmot
What is unrealistic is thinking that it is perfectly OK for the space industry to decide what odds they are willing to tolerate for killing someone who has not agreed to the process. Astronauts understand and implicitly agree to the odds that their flight might kill them. People on the ground are given no such choice and THAT is the problem. While nothing is risk free, the risks CAN be reduced but won't be because of the costs.billslugg said:Yes, it is correct that there are numerous ways of insuring things burn up before they hit the ground but that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about a total risk assessment. Given that we try to safely deorbit our rockets, we must still calculate the odds that the deorbit procedure would fail. There will be accidents. Nothing is risk free. As far as I know, it is only the Chinese who send stuff up there with no consideration whatsoever for where it comes down. Current US rockets go up only after calculation of the odds. My original point is they do not use "zero chance" as their benchmark since it is not obtainable. Your insistence they do is unrealistic. -
Unclear Engineer Society does lots of things that create risks for individuals. Building dams, roads, airports, etc., etc., etc. all contribute to the risk that some particular individual might get hurt or killed.Reply
So, it really isn't a matter of getting a buy-in from EVERY person who is exposed to some added risk. It is a decision by a government agency, based on laws passed by some sort of legislative branch and regulations adopted by some sort of executive branch. In a democracy, those laws and rules are subject to citizen inputs, and the risk levels are supposed to be openly discussed. Of course, this discussion sometimes gets more emotional than scientific, and so projects like nuclear power reactors tend to go in and out of favor as people's attitudes are changed by various events like accidents or threats of greater risks that people want to mitigate.
In the case of space debris, the U.S. is currently the leading launch provider, so working on the U.S. regulation's treatment of risk would be a useful place to start. But, China seems to be determined to exceed the U.S. in launch rate, so this will ultimately become an issue for international politics. And, we all know how ineffective that is for creating social order. But, it is a discussion worth having. -
Unclear Engineer And now this: https://www.foxweather.com/earth-space/nc-space-x-seven-debris-trunk-find .Reply
It seems like SpaceX and NASA are going to need to provide more precise deorbiting capabilities for all space junk soon, or they will hit somebody pretty soon.
And, I have to wonder what the effects on Earth will eventually be when we are having things burning up or dumping in a designated spot in the South Pacific Ocean at the levels associated with all of those activities the "space commerce" folks keep telling us will happen.
At some point, dilution is not the solution to pollution. For a historical perspective, read https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/24/world/thomas-midgley-jr-leaded-gas-freon-scn/index.html .