Huge Defunct Satellite to Plunge to Earth Soon, NASA Says

Even ignoring that post-Columbia flight rules (instigated by the CAIB) would have forbidden a retrieval flight, there are two main problems. One is that NASA was always nervous about landing such a heavily laden Orbiter in a non-emergency situation. It's within the Orbiter's capabilities, technically speaking (and has to be, in case something goes wrong before it can deploy a massive payload), but it's into the hairy edge zone where more things can go wrong. The other is that it would be expensive, and given that there are many heavy satellites that will eventually fall, how do you choose which ones to return? They weren't even able to successfully argue for returning Compton, the first of the Great Observatories, or even Hubble when it comes to the end of its lifetime. So yes, it was possible (before Shuttle was decommissioned), but very unlikely to happen.

It's an acceptable risk to NASA if it drops in your backyard or on you.

Mark -- well, they have to compare the risk of the satellite's debris striking and injuring someone or damaging property versus the risk of losing a Shuttle and its crew in the effort to retrieve it (not to mention the expense of the mission itself). If there was only one spacecraft needing retrieval, it might be justifiable -- but there are hundreds which could eventually become killers. How much risk is really reduced by removing one of them? Is it worth risking a Shuttle and her crew if the overall risk isn't really reduced much? Probably not. Hubble had the most going for a return mission; historical value, so it could be stuck in the Smithsonian for people to gape at for decades to come. And even that wasn't enough, in the end.

Or something to destoy it in orbit from remote control,say a radio charge on it.

Destroying it in orbit is a very bad idea; it will just generate more orbital debris and increase the odds of taking out another spacecraft. It's a big problem.

To include maneuvering thrusters is fairly straightforward, but not all spacecraft missions are compatible with them. Hubble, for instance, has no thrusters at all, because they would contaminate the telescope, and because it had an alternate system for attitude control -- reaction control motors (gyros, basically). As it is, the Shuttle always had to be very delicate when approaching it with its own thrusters. I could see requiring all spacecraft carry a deorbit package; space is still a virtually unregulated environment, and that would probably be my first choice for a new regulation.

It would be inconvenient (to NASA) to provide the ability to deorbit satellites safely. Better for the public to take their chances. Same goes for the ISS. NASA is only NOW giving some thought to the matter.

That would make too much sense. Back when the shuttle first became operational one of the things that was discussed was using the spent main tanks in the manner you suggest. Docking a few of these together could make a dandy space station on the scale of MIR, or form the basis of a lunar orbiter. It wouldn't take much of an additional burn to get them up there. Boeing and others even had designs for habitable modules that fit inside the upper portion of the tank. The Soviets were so economical with their program (because they had to be). I've often wished we were.

Bingo.

This reminds me of a redneck joke. Two rednecks decide to do duck hunting near a giant river located next to a tall mountain. At the same time a Yankee decides he will go hang gliding so he jumps off the same mountain and away he goes gliding in the air above the river. Those two rednecks look up above their heads and as the Yankee on the hang glider swoops just over them. The first redneck starts shooting away at the Yankee. Then the second redneck asks his friend, "Did you get that fowl?" To which his friend answers, "I don't know but did you see how quick that giant bird dropped that man into the river as soon as I shot at him?"

There's alway a 1st time.

Unfortunately, that's something that people in the space biz are painfully aware of. Plus, there is at least one report of an injury; it just wasn't a *human* injury. I seem to recall reading that a deorbiting Soviet probe struck and killed a cow in Argentina. If it could do that, it could kill a person. The odds are against it, but really, it's just as likely for debris to hit a spot with a person on it as any other particular spot on Earth. It's just that there are lots more spots without people.