ISS crew throws out space junk?

MeteorWayne · Jul 25, 2007

Not not th one in Bayonne a week or so ago, The "meteorite" was in early January; I actually got to see the object at Rutgers. See this thread. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

usn_skwerl · Jul 25, 2007

i laughed out loud at the news when that meteorite fell through those folks' bathroom. they interviewed some of the local neighbors at a nearby park, and one lady replied with something very similar to "this is a scary thing, i mean, what if it fell in this park? our kids play out here. can something be done abiut this?" (yeah, we'll build a meteor-proof planet-shield just to keep the kids safe <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />) its like, "what, are you gonna sue god for it?" gimme a break. i hate stupid people... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Jul 25, 2007

I guess she'll really be pissed if an asteroid hits us <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

usn_skwerl · Jul 25, 2007

im glad im not Apophis, and that this isnt 2036... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Jul 25, 2007

Found this list of recovered space debris link <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

3488 · Jul 25, 2007

From JHU website. Wriiten by Ed Murphy. At 13:30 U.T. on April 27, 2000 another Delta II second stage reentered over South Africa. The large propellant tank landed 37 km NE of Cape Town, and one nozzle-pressurization sphere was recovered 70 km ESE of the propellant tank in Lemoenpoort. The combustion chamber was recovered near the town of Robertson, 24 km ESE of the pressurization sphere. The second stage (NORAD 23834, 96019B) was from the launch of the Navstar GPS 2-25 satellite (SV No. 33) at 00:21:00 on March 28, 1996. My thanks to David Laney of the South African Astronomical Observatory for providing the details on the locations of the items and the time of the fall. Ed Murphy, Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

3488 · Jul 25, 2007

From JHU website. Written by Ed Murphy. On April 24, 1996 a Delta II rocket launched a U.S. Department of Defense satellite called the Midcourse Space Experiment (MSX) into a polar orbit from the Vandenberg Air Force Base. The second stage from that launch reentered over the southern U.S. at 9:33 U.T. on January 22, 1997 and spread large pieces of debris over Texas and Oklahoma. The large 580 lb propellant tank, two nozzle pressurization spheres, and part of the structure survived reentry. Ed Murphy. Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

3488 · Jul 25, 2007

Image 2 of Texas fall. Two views of the 580 lb Delta II second stage propellant tank which landed 50 yards f rom an occupied farmhouse near Georgetown, Texas. Note the farmhouse in the upper photograph. Ed Murphy. Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

erioladastra · Jul 25, 2007

"It is not known whether if any of the hardware will survive entry. If any, it will be small pieces " We are fairly certain parts of the EAS will survive. The ammonia tanks (spherical like the ones that survived Columbia) are most probable. The odds of impact are similar to Delta IV upper stages.

erioladastra · Jul 25, 2007

"It is binding." Doesn't apply in this case. Here there NASA Jettison Policy applies. Since this violated the jettison policy in several regards, a Non Compliance Report (NCR) was generated to explain the rationale why violated the jettison policy was justified and safe. The likelihood of hurting a person is about 1/4300 for EAS (1/23000 for VSSA FSE). THis is the same as for TRMSAT and numerous rocket bodies like Delta IVs that are launched each year.

bdewoody · Jul 26, 2007

So, in the worst case scenario , the amonia tank survives re-entry and slams into a populated area even if it doesn't kill anyone I can just see the CNN and Fox news sound bytes. How much extra would it cost just to attach such junk securely to some point on the exterior of the ISS. But then when the ISS is eventually abandoned what the heck are we going to do with it? I would suggest moving it to a higher more secure orbit or the earth moon La Grange point. Space junk is sort of like low level nuclear waste, what to do with it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Bob DeWoody </div>

jimfromnsf · Jul 26, 2007

1. The odds are too high. It won't be around any one 2. they reason for jettisoning it was because there was no longer a place to secure it to the ISS 3. The ISS will be deorbited 4. "I would suggest moving it to a higher more secure orbit or the earth moon La Grange point. " this would take more flights to ISS to deliver propellant than it took to build it 5. we deorbit space junk to get rid of it You are fretting over a minor risk and a non issue

bdewoody · Jul 26, 2007

I'm not fretting at all. I'm just pointing out that should even a near miss occur on a de-orbit of any man made piece of hardware the media would stir up a tempest in a teapot and possibly set back space exploration for years. My example: some drums containing low level radioactive material fell over in Japan last week during the earthquake and now there's a frantic cry to shut down all nuclear powerplants. It doesn't take much to panic the public with some help from news media reporters with over active imaginations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Bob DeWoody </div>

MeteorWayne · Jul 26, 2007

You certainly have a good point there, but despite all the crap that's fallen back to earth, nobody's been hurt yet. Of course, that string of luck could run out any time, but it would be just as likely to be a Russian rocket motor, or Delta motor as this particular tank. The good thing is, the ammonia will be gone....not a great comfort if it falls on yer' noggin. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

jimfromnsf · Jul 26, 2007

The chances are so low that it is not worth the cost to do anything different. It will not set back space exploration. It will just be a spike in the media frenzy and then go away without an impact. Planes crash into houses all the time. Has that set back aviation? Space debris, if it did hit something, would limited damage. like the car photo. I have proof than the chances are EXTREMELY low and not worth doing more than NASA has already done. The Columbia accident sprayed 1000's of pieces over a large area. Was anyone hit? NO. Barring another accident, there isn't going to another incident with a higher chance of hitting something

bdewoody · Jul 26, 2007

Good you understand that just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't happen. I just think that with all the media hype about the possibility of falling asteroids and comets it could be poor PR to advertise that fact that we purposely discard hardware from the ISS with the extremely unlikely possibility that said objects could make it to the ground. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Bob DeWoody </div>

bdewoody · Jul 26, 2007

Jim, Tell me this, how many nuclear reactors have been built in the USA since three mile island? It basically proved that even with a semi serious accident our reactor designs have enough safety built in to prevent a major disaster unlike in Russia. Even so we have not built a new nuclear power plant in the US in over 30 years. Nasa gets its money from Congress and if they get a bug up their #** space funding could dry up in a heart beat. Don't get me wrong I am definetly pro space as most in here can attest to. Thats why I hate to see things done that could hurt our future in space, like sending up a shuttle with a known flaw that could have been fixed (Challenger not Columbia). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Bob DeWoody </div>

MeteorWayne · Jul 26, 2007

Sadly that is true. Columbia scattered a lot of heavy pieces over a very large area of Texas and Louisiana. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

MeteorWayne · Jul 26, 2007

Actually both were "known flaws". So in a sense, it's keeping space affordable. If you reduced the risk as close to zero as possible, it would cost a million dollars a pound to launch into orbit. It would be safe, but could not be afforded by anyone. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

barky · Jul 26, 2007

The 1/4300 odds that erioladastra cited are the odds of human injury, not the odds of an impact in a populated area. I haven't tried to understand the details of how the odds are calculated, but I recall the space that an individual occupies being considered, so I don't think the chances of an impact in a area that's considered populated are calculated. The chances of human injury are probably far less than the chances of what people would consider a near miss. I'm not so sure that the chances of a near miss are "too high." Bdewoody has a good point about how "the media would stir up a tempest in a teapot." I also wonder whether the "footprint" of a standing or sitting person is used in the calculations. Maybe projectiles from the impact are considered, making the exact footprint unimportant. Erioladastra said that the odds of human injury are "the same as for TRMSAT and numerous rocket bodies like Delta IVs that are launched each year." I wonder if we know whether those objects burned up or impacted earth with no damage. Maybe they largely burned up and the algorithm used to estimate the danger assumed they will impact on the ground, in which case we wouldn't be able to use the rarity of damage as evidence that impacting space junk rarely causes damage, and there would be less real-world confirmation that the algorithm for estimating injury from impacts is accurate. Also, the EAS (ammonia tank) may react differently than things that previously fell to earth. The odds of injury could end up being much higher (or lower). I wonder if mixing some ceramic bits in the with metal used for the tank and making the interior and exterior surface of the tank rough would cause more heat from friction and help it burn up. And maybe a darker color. Maybe just a small explosive device to weaken the walls a little would help.

jimfromnsf · Jul 26, 2007

You are mixing apples and oranges. Space debris is not nuclear reactor or an asteriod. They would affect 100's to millions of people. Space debris MAY affect one person. No one is going to get a bug up their #** over an isolated incident. There are greater threats to the furture of space exploration. This is way, way down the list

barky · Jul 26, 2007

Jimfromnsf: you wrote "I have proof than the chances are EXTREMELY low and not worth doing more than NASA has already done." Considering your handle and that sentence I think something needs to be clarified. The "nsf" in your handle doesn't stand for National Science Foundation or anything space related, does it? I tried researching this and I think it refers to an unrelated website. I just want to make sure we're all giving your posts the proper weight.

jimfromnsf · Jul 26, 2007

"1. the same as for TRMSAT and numerous rocket bodies like Delta IVs that are launched each year." I wonder if we know whether those objects burned up or impacted earth with no damage. Maybe they largely burned up and the algorithm used to estimate the danger assumed they will impact on the ground, in which case we wouldn't be able to use the rarity of damage as evidence that impacting space junk rarely causes damage, and there would be less real-world confirmation that the algorithm for estimating injury from impacts is accurate. 2. Also, the EAS (ammonia tank) may react differently than things that previously fell to earth. The odds of injury could end up being much higher (or lower). 3. I wonder if mixing some ceramic bits in the with metal used for the tank and making the interior and exterior surface of the tank rough would cause more heat from friction and help it burn up. And maybe a darker color. Maybe just a small explosive device to weaken the walls a little would help." 1. They have impacted. See the pics earlier in the thread. 2. It is a generic calculation 3. not needed. The ceramic would change the properties of the tanks and its ability to contain pressure. Color changes would affect thermal properties on orbit. Put explosives on a manned object?

jimfromnsf · Jul 26, 2007

The proof that chances are EXTREMELY low is what the Columbia accident demonstrated. Don't need to be a rocket scientist to see . I am the same Jim that is on NASASpaceFlight.xxx. My creditials have been discussed there.

MeteorWayne · Jul 26, 2007

And even orbital debris, having lost it's orbital velocity, is falling straight down when it hits the surface. So to reduce your odds, follow mom's advice. "Stand up straight!" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

ISS crew throws out space junk?

MeteorWayne

Guest

usn_skwerl

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

usn_skwerl

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

3488

Guest

3488

Guest

3488

Guest

erioladastra

Guest

erioladastra

Guest

bdewoody

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

bdewoody

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

bdewoody

Guest

bdewoody

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

barky

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

barky

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page