Jettisoned space junk -- how big?

Jim Oberg wrote:
To put the fuss over the hazards of the golk ball
stunt in proportion, what are the largest cases of
jettison of materials from space stations -- Skylab,
Salyuts, mir, ISS, any of them -- to compare it to?

There was one Progress that separated without
adequate deorbit propellant, and what happened to the
Kvant-1 service module?

More specifically, I'm interested in EVA manual
jettsions -- trashbags, spacesuits, unneeded external
structureal elements and packing material, etc. How
big have they gotten to be?


Some day we will send a garbage truck up there and vacuum it all up.

--
Two ways to improve your life.
1. Turn off the TV.
2. Throw it out the window.

Vlad the Impaler

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
hop wrote:
Jim Oberg wrote:

I've heard this said,
but I haven't seen
any proof of it.

I'd like to see the proposed mechanism as well. Unless I've messed
something up, the ballistic number of the golf ball is so much lower
than that of ISS it really isn't going to be in the same neighborhood
for very long. The current relatively high eccentricity of the ISS
(13km) orbit extends the window a bit I guess...

That's a good point. It wouldn't have time enough to get much different.

Exactly. Which would mean that long term effects, like differential nodal
regression (which you mentioned in a reply to me), could be safely ignored.

Any impact would be likely to happen after one (or a very low number) of
orbits, which would mean that the impact velocity would be roughly equal to
the velocity originally imparted by the astronaut hitting the ball with the
club.

Still, I don't think you'd want something like a golf ball hitting a solar
array or cooling panel even at that relatively low velocity.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

But the main point, which thousands of forum and
blog pundits seem to have missed and keep on
missing with a vengeance, is that it's perfectly
*feasible* for the ball to return at some later
date and impact ISS with a relative velocity
orders of magnitude greater than the one the
cosmonaut imparted to it.

From what I remember from my orbital mechanics classes, I don't see how
this
could happen, especially since ISS's orbit is pretty much circular.


In reality, the golf ball orbit is going to decay pretty darn quick and not
really be a problem.

But in theory, it could be very hard to track, and maybe hit something else
like a Soyuz or Progress (or maybe even a Shuttle on those rare days...)

Also, in theory, if it was knocked to an orbit that took a bit longer (or
shorter) than the roughly hour and a half that the station orbit takes, it
will return to the same point in the orbit say in two hours instead of 1.5
hours. Some day, the station and the golf ball could again converge on the
same point with the station going at max spead North and the ball going at
max speed South, (or vice versa), and that would be a big approach velocity.

Pretty dumb problems, just to have a publicity stunt that doesn't even match
the class of the original.

John Gilbert
(If you want a stunt that will really get people interested, it is time to
send up another married couple...)

John Gilbert wrote:
hours. Some day, the station and the golf ball could again converge on the
same point with the station going at max spead North and the ball going at
max speed South, (or vice versa), and that would be a big approach velocity.


Assuming the golf ball was thrown exactly aft of the ISS trajectory,
will its precession continue to match that of the ISS or will it start
to "drift" more or less ?

If the precession remains the same, is it correct to state that the golf
ball could never impact the ISS with a force greater than the energy
given by the golf club when it was swung ?


(aka: that the scenario of the golf ball travelling at 25,000km/h north
hitting the ISS travelling 25,000/h south would never happen).

"John Doe" wrote in message ...
John Gilbert wrote:
hours. Some day, the station and the golf ball could again converge on
the
same point with the station going at max spead North and the ball going
at
max speed South, (or vice versa), and that would be a big approach
velocity.


Assuming the golf ball was thrown exactly aft of the ISS trajectory,
will its precession continue to match that of the ISS or will it start
to "drift" more or less ?

If the precession remains the same, is it correct to state that the golf
ball could never impact the ISS with a force greater than the energy
given by the golf club when it was swung ?


(aka: that the scenario of the golf ball travelling at 25,000km/h north
hitting the ISS travelling 25,000/h south would never happen).

The precession is based mostly on how long the orbit takes. Only if the
golf ball had the same time for one orbit as the station would there be no
variation in their precessions, as seen from the rotating Earth. Basically
the item in orbit does its orbit, and the world turns underneath. Assume
both items are going their maximum speed north at the same moment. After
one complete orbit, each item returns to the same part of their orbit, and
again is going north at their max speed. But if the golf ball has an orbit
that takes 1 hour and 45 minutes, and the station has an orbit that takes 1
hour and 40 minutes, they will slowly get out of step as to when they are at
their maximum speed going north or south. However, the items would tend to
still be going north at the same part of the path around the Earth (ignoring
the Earth's rotation). But other forces can change their orbits, i.e
different amounts of drag from the atmosphere, different effects from the
moon since the items aren't travelling together, etc.

The stupid thing is, NASA is so impoverished for ideas that they have built
this super expensive science outpost and this is all they can think of to do
with it. Mediocrity has never been more powerful.

John Gilbert

John Gilbert wrote:

The stupid thing is, NASA is so impoverished for ideas that they have built
this super expensive science outpost and this is all they can think of to do
with it. Mediocrity has never been more powerful.




The golf ball shot was a idea from the Russian, not NASA, side of the
project.
And the idea was to make a buck doing it as an ad for a golf club
manufacturer:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...xp13_golf.html
As we know, NASA has far too much dignity to actually try making money
off of space.
That's just not how it's done. :-D

Pat

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...



To put the fuss over the hazards of the golk ball
stunt in proportion, what are the largest cases of
jettison of materials from space stations -- Skylab,
Salyuts, mir, ISS, any of them -- to compare it to?


That would be when the last mission to Mir, Soyuz TM-30,
undocked and thereby jettisoned the entire Mir complex
in June 2000.

RT

"John Gilbert" wrote in
ink.net:

The stupid thing is, NASA is so impoverished for ideas that they have
built this super expensive science outpost and this is all they can
think of to do with it.

This wasn't NASA's idea. It was the Russians. NASA has learned (several
times, the hard way) that they are powerless to prevent the Russians from
doing what they want with their segment of the station.

Mediocrity has never been more powerful.

Speak for yourself. It seems you can't even be bothered to learn the truth
about who's sponsoring this stunt.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Vlad writes:


Some day we will send a garbage truck up there and vacuum it all up.


Clarke brought that up in "3001". They had to clean up the area before
building the elevators, etc...

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

"John Gilbert" wrote in message
ink.net...

The stupid thing is, NASA is so impoverished for ideas that they have
built
this super expensive science outpost and this is all they can think of to
do
with it. Mediocrity has never been more powerful.

Actually, the golf ball thing is coming from the Russians. They're
essentially being paid to do a commercial in LEO. Damn capitalist Russian
space program. How dare they interfere with the socialist NASA space
program. Don't they know LEO is for research, not profit?

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)