A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Shuttle
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stardust landing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 16th 06, 03:35 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stardust landing

Am I the only one who was reminded of "Andromeda Strain" upon seeing a
capsule that had travelled in outer space fall back on the ground in
remote area of USA ?


Out of curiosity, has NASA taken any steps to filly isolate/quarantine
the capsule ? From the video footage I saw, it didn't seem obvious at all.


Are the contents of the capsule still in vacuum, totally sealed from the
outside ? Or did it repressurise as the capsule re-entered our
atmosphere ?
  #2  
Old January 16th 06, 03:41 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stardust landing

At the impact speeds of the particle collection,
it would be self-sterilizing to the nth degree.



"John Doe" wrote in message ...
Am I the only one who was reminded of "Andromeda Strain" upon seeing a
capsule that had travelled in outer space fall back on the ground in
remote area of USA ?


Out of curiosity, has NASA taken any steps to filly isolate/quarantine
the capsule ? From the video footage I saw, it didn't seem obvious at all.


Are the contents of the capsule still in vacuum, totally sealed from the
outside ? Or did it repressurise as the capsule re-entered our
atmosphere ?



  #3  
Old January 16th 06, 04:02 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stardust landing

Jim Oberg wrote:

At the impact speeds of the particle collection,
it would be self-sterilizing to the nth degree.


For conventional viri and microbes, yes, assuming a head-on collision.
But assuming every particle will be at speed of 0 while the ship is at
high speed is perhaps a dangerous assumption. And assuming that only
viri and microbes known on earth are a danger to the human body is also
a dangerous assumption.

And it works both ways too. You don't want stuff on earth to contaminate
what it has collected.
  #4  
Old January 16th 06, 08:58 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stardust landing


"John Doe" wrote in message
...
Jim Oberg wrote:

At the impact speeds of the particle collection,
it would be self-sterilizing to the nth degree.


For conventional viri and microbes, yes, assuming a head-on collision.
But assuming every particle will be at speed of 0 while the ship is at
high speed is perhaps a dangerous assumption. And assuming that only
viri and microbes known on earth are a danger to the human body is also
a dangerous assumption.


There are also other things (like fungi and prions) that are also dangerous
to the human body.

And it works both ways too. You don't want stuff on earth to contaminate
what it has collected.


Once the particles crash into the gel, they are for all intents and
purposes fully encapsulated.

George


  #6  
Old January 16th 06, 07:50 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stardust landing


John Doe wrote:
Jim Oberg wrote:

At the impact speeds of the particle collection,
it would be self-sterilizing to the nth degree.


For conventional viri and microbes, yes, assuming a head-on collision.
But assuming every particle will be at speed of 0 while the ship is at
high speed is perhaps a dangerous assumption. And assuming that only
viri and microbes known on earth are a danger to the human body is also
a dangerous assumption.


Well, that depends on what you think of JSC ;-) That's where the
capsule is being opened.


And it works both ways too. You don't want stuff on earth to contaminate
what it has collected.


Oh, the exterior of the capsule should be pretty well sterilized,
too...I think it exceeded 104 F for more than 2 mintues....

/dps

  #7  
Old January 17th 06, 06:00 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stardust landing


"snidely" wrote in message
oups.com...

Oh, the exterior of the capsule should be pretty well sterilized,
too...I think it exceeded 104 F for more than 2 mintues....


There's not much that that would kill.

To truly sterilize something here on Earth generally requires an autoclave
so you can get high pressure and high temperature.


/dps



  #8  
Old January 18th 06, 11:30 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stardust landing

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:


"snidely" wrote in message
roups.com...

Oh, the exterior of the capsule should be pretty well sterilized,
too...I think it exceeded 104 F for more than 2 mintues....


There's not much that that would kill.

To truly sterilize something here on Earth generally requires an autoclave
so you can get high pressure and high temperature.


Heck 104F won't even meet health department standards, which fall far
short of sterilization to start with.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #9  
Old January 17th 06, 04:25 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stardust landing

Jim Oberg wrote:

At the impact speeds of the particle collection,
it would be self-sterilizing to the nth degree.



In a PBS (USA) report, it was stated that the particles would be
"gently" captured by a special semi transparent foam (Aerogel I think
it is called). The vehicle would have been going at roughly the same
speed as the comet.

On the CBC (CANADA) tonight, they mentioned that the recovered vehicle
was in fact placed in a sealed environment and carried to Houston where
it would be opened in a super clean room environment to prevent any
contamination.

With regards to meteorites, they do not have heat shields designed to
keep their contents intact during re-entry. And if comets contain water
and as some would suggest some "organic materials" (which I assume to
mean elements normally found in organic materials), then protecting the
earth from then and vice versa would be important.
  #10  
Old January 17th 06, 02:21 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stardust landing

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:25:07 -0500, John Doe wrote:

Jim Oberg wrote:

At the impact speeds of the particle collection,
it would be self-sterilizing to the nth degree.


In a PBS (USA) report, it was stated that the particles would be
"gently" captured by a special semi transparent foam (Aerogel I think
it is called). The vehicle would have been going at roughly the same
speed as the comet.


Exactly. The particles were gently decelerated.

Dale

But that probably makes for bad TV...
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stardust parachutes to soft landing in Utah with dust samples fromcomet (Forwarded) Andrew Yee News 0 January 15th 06 11:52 PM
Stardust Team Prepares for Return of Science Canister [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 October 20th 05 10:43 PM
Stardust Team Prepares for Return of Science Canister [email protected] News 0 October 20th 05 10:43 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 September 2nd 05 04:13 AM
Space Shuttle ypauls Misc 3 March 15th 04 01:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.