More debris in space

Today, I can read in sci.space.news:
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-065

Dust Cover Jettisoned From NASA's Kepler Telescope
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
April 07, 2009

Engineers have successfully ejected the dust cover from NASA's Kepler
telescope, a spaceborne mission soon to begin searching for worlds
like Earth.

"The cover released and flew away exactly as we designed it to do,"
said Kepler Project Manager James Fanson of NASA's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

---------------------------------------------------------------

"flew away" is other words for:

It was released into orbit around earth!

It will join the thousands of objects already high there!

I do not understand why the satellites can't jettison this stuff so that
it falls down quickly into the atmosphere.


--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

jacob navia wrote:
I do not understand why the satellites can't jettison this stuff so
that it falls down quickly into the atmosphere.

Budget - both mass and money. However, in the case of Kepler, it
actually isn't in orbit around the Earth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_satellite

It is in orbit around the Sun, trailing the Earth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_...ission_details

Where exactly this dust cover will end-up I don't know, but am willing
to guess it does not represent much of a threat to Earth orbiting
satellites.

rick jones
--
portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Rick Jones wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
I do not understand why the satellites can't jettison this stuff so
that it falls down quickly into the atmosphere.

Budget - both mass and money.

This is always the same. Only short term costs are calculated.

The huge long term cost of cleaning up the mess is never considered.
We have now almost lost the ISS because of the orbiting trash.
How much did the ISS cost?

However, in the case of Kepler, it
actually isn't in orbit around the Earth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_satellite

It is in orbit around the Sun, trailing the Earth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_...ission_details

Where exactly this dust cover will end-up I don't know, but am willing
to guess it does not represent much of a threat to Earth orbiting
satellites.

rick jones

This piece of junk will go on circling the sun, trailing the earth and
with the decades it will be forgotten just like the old Kosmos was
forgotten and destroyed another satellite.

True, in a sun trailing orbit it is much less dangerous but it is a
question of principle.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

On Apr 9, 5:12*am, jacob navia wrote:

True, in a sun trailing orbit it is much less dangerous but it is a
question of principle.


you are making a big deal of nothing.
The principle is that this object will not matter, it is an orbit that
is not used by other spacecraft. It will not destroy another
spacecraft. It is not "less" dangerous, it is just plain "not"
dangerous. This is not adding to the debris in earth orbit. If it
were in earth orbit, it would be a big deal, but it isn't. Your lack
of understanding orbital mechanics is why you think this is a problem

wrote:
On Apr 9, 5:12 am, jacob navia wrote:

True, in a sun trailing orbit it is much less dangerous but it is a
question of principle.


you are making a big deal of nothing.
The principle is that this object will not matter, it is an orbit that
is not used by other spacecraft.


Er... If this orbit was chosen for a spacecraft it means it is
interesting since it keeps the spacecraft away from earth and from the
torque complications of having a rotating planet underneath you.

But precisely this characteristics make it interesting for a wide range
of spacecraft that would as interested as this one in getting away from
earth.

What do we know about the future?

What do we know about what kinds of orbits will be interesting
to scientists 100 years from now?

Objects stay in space essentially forever. There is no wind, no erosion
NOTHING, it is empty.

I have always been interested in spaceflight and I remember the
assurance when the first satellites left all kinds of debris
in space that scientists told us:

"the probability of that part colliding with another spacecraft
is zero".

This thinking led us to the situation of today where
there was just a 10 minute alarm to save the ISS from an
incoming debris.

It will not destroy another
spacecraft. It is not "less" dangerous, it is just plain "not"
dangerous. This is not adding to the debris in earth orbit.

No. It is adding debris to the trailing orbits of the earth.

If it
were in earth orbit, it would be a big deal, but it isn't.

This spacecraft is beginning to pollute a NEW realm of space,
I already understood that. What is appalling is that you
do not understand such a simple fact.

Your lack
of understanding orbital mechanics is why you think this is a problem



No, your way of thinking is the problem:

"Let's pollute now, it is just so small that nobody will ever
care".

And then replicating again and again the small pollution becomes
a problem.

This way of thinking this way of building has polluted the
whole planet. Of course a few liters of gas do not make
any difference. And that led us to almost destroy the
ozone layer.

Each small pollution is small. If we extrapolate into the future they
are big.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

On Apr 9, 11:30*am, jacob navia wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 9, 5:12 am, jacob navia wrote:

True, in a sun trailing orbit it is much less dangerous but it is a
question of principle.

There is no principle broken here.


Er... If this orbit was chosen for a spacecraft it means it is
interesting since it keeps the spacecraft away from earth and from the
torque complications of having a rotating planet underneath you.


Incorrect, it was chosen to avoid light from the earth


But precisely this characteristics make it interesting for a wide range
of spacecraft that would as interested as this one in getting away from
earth.
What do we know about what kinds of orbits will be interesting
to scientists 100 years from now?

It is not interesting for a wide range of spacecraft.

Objects stay in space essentially forever. There is no wind, no erosion
NOTHING, it is empty.

So, this means that there is nothing for this cover to run into and it
will affect nothing, which is right

This thinking led us to the situation of today where
there was just a 10 minute alarm to save the ISS from an
incoming debris.

That is in earth orbit. Not the same thing. Kepler is in solar
orbit

No. It is adding debris to the trailing orbits of the earth.

You don't understand. It is in solar and not earth orbit

This spacecraft is beginning to pollute a NEW realm of space,
I already understood that. What is appalling is that you
do not understand such a simple fact.

No, you don't understand. It is not a 'new" realm of space. It is a
inconceivability large part of space, where there is nothing in it.
What is appalling is your complete lack of understand and you are
blowing this way of proportion. You need to study spaceflight in
general.

wrote:
On Apr 9, 11:30 am, jacob navia wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 9, 5:12 am, jacob navia wrote:
True, in a sun trailing orbit it is much less dangerous but it is a
question of principle.

There is no principle broken here.

Er... If this orbit was chosen for a spacecraft it means it is
interesting since it keeps the spacecraft away from earth and from the
torque complications of having a rotating planet underneath you.


Incorrect, it was chosen to avoid light from the earth



And, in the page you pointed me to, there is ALSO this
sentence:

This orbit avoids gravitational perturbations and torques inherent in an
Earth orbit, allowing for a more stable viewing platform.

OK?

But precisely this characteristics make it interesting for a wide range
of spacecraft that would as interested as this one in getting away from
earth.
What do we know about what kinds of orbits will be interesting
to scientists 100 years from now?

It is not interesting for a wide range of spacecraft.


What do you know?

According to NASA: (http://kepler.nasa.gov/sci/design/orbit.html)

quote
An Earth-trailing heliocentric orbit with a period of 372.5 days
provides the optimum approach to meeting of the combined Sun-Earth-Moon
avoidance criteria.
end quote

Any other spacecraft that wants undisturbed fine pointing would chose
that orbit too!


Objects stay in space essentially forever. There is no wind, no erosion
NOTHING, it is empty.

So, this means that there is nothing for this cover to run into and it
will affect nothing, which is right


Yes. I even agree with that. There is nothing until we put ANOTHER
spacecraft in an earth trailing orbit!

This thinking led us to the situation of today where
there was just a 10 minute alarm to save the ISS from an
incoming debris.

That is in earth orbit. Not the same thing. Kepler is in solar
orbit


Yes. But 30 years ago there was NOTHING up there. 30 years later
we have it so crowded that it is a risk for the astronauts!


No. It is adding debris to the trailing orbits of the earth.

You don't understand. It is in solar and not earth orbit


Of course it is a solar orbit, that is the definition of
an earth trailing orbit! An orbit around the sun that trails
the earth!


This spacecraft is beginning to pollute a NEW realm of space,
I already understood that. What is appalling is that you
do not understand such a simple fact.

No, you don't understand. It is not a 'new" realm of space.

Yes, it is the space behind the earth orbit. We have already polluted
all of the earth orbit.

GREAT

Now we start with the space behind the earth.


It is a
inconceivability large part of space, where there is nothing in it.

As it was earth orbit 30 years ago.

What is appalling is your complete lack of understand and you are
blowing this way of proportion. You need to study spaceflight in
general.


You are just throwing words around, nothing else.

jacob navia wrote:
Objects stay in space essentially forever. There is no wind, no
erosion NOTHING, it is empty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

which is the driving force behind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flag
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Rick Jones wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
Objects stay in space essentially forever. There is no wind, no
erosion NOTHING, it is empty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

which is the driving force behind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail

rick jones

Well, in a few million years that dust shield
will then wander away.
:-)

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

On Apr 8, 3:53*pm, jacob navia wrote:
Today, I can read in sci.space.news:
---------------------------------------------------------------http://www..jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-065

Dust Cover Jettisoned From NASA's Kepler Telescope
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
April 07, 2009

Engineers have successfully ejected the dust cover from NASA's Kepler
telescope, a spaceborne mission soon to begin searching for worlds
like Earth.

"The cover released and flew away exactly as we designed it to do,"
said Kepler Project Manager James Fanson of NASA's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

---------------------------------------------------------------

"flew away" is other words for:

It was released into orbit around earth!

It will join the thousands of objects already high there!

I do not understand why the satellites can't jettison this stuff so that
it falls down quickly into the atmosphere.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatiquehttp://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

It's the WDC (we don't care) policy, in that if you or I ever did such
a thing we'd have our socks sued off and be locked up for life, if not
something worse.

It wouldn't have taken all that much to have small robotic thruster
and a few tethers for getting those shields headed towards Earth.
Obviously there are always qualified exceptions to the rules that
apply to everyone else.

~ BG