[dylan604]

Just finished reading the article with the exact same question in mind.

Plummet gets the clicks though, so to the website, it is appropriate.

It could also be argued it's a sense of perspective. Something that falls at the rate of 2km per year suddenly in a matter of months starts to fall at a rate of 20km per year could seem like plummeting when you're the one tasked with keeping it alive or the person that paid for it to be there for 10 years to see it suddenly shortened to 2 years. It's a stretch, but we all love hyperbole

[uranium]

This. To space folks, that is plummeting. It's enough of a difference, and a surprise, to have a significant effect on business models.

[Aachen]

It's a significant difference that has a real impact on the satellites. But we also don't say that airplanes plummet when landing or elevators when going down.

To me at least, plummet signals it's a matter of seconds or, perhaps from great altitude, minutes until it hits the bottom. So to me, and that's knowing a thing or two about space, this title is just clickbait and not a good description of the phenomenon observed even for a techy public like HN.

[dylan604]

We absolutely refer to planes as plummeting, when the situation warrants.

This article wasn't written for HN. It was written for the general audience that peruses Space.com. Because someone found it interesting and posted to HN is pretty much the only reason it is on HN. Space.com didn't submit it in hopes of gaining attention by a hypercritical audience.

Yes, I agree it is click bait. I'm just playing devil's advocate to some of your weaker arguments.

[thaumasiotes]

> We absolutely refer to planes as plummeting, when the situation warrants.

Yes, and landing is not one of those situations. To describe a plane as "plummeting" requires that it crash (or recover and stay airborne) rather than landing.

Or in other words, Aachen's claim that "we also don't say that airplanes plummet when landing" was correct in every particular.