Trash from Intl Space Station, tank of toxic ammonia coolant,expected to strike earth on 11/2. No other way?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27479972/

An excerpt from the article for fair use and to pique the interest of
readers and those who are alarmed at the amount of trash that has been
left in space and is defiling "the last frontier". Have we not
learned ANYTHING about the defilement of Earth? Apparently NOT!

By Tariq Malik
Senior editor

updated 8:15 p.m. ET, Fri., Oct. 31, 2008
A piece of space station trash the size of a refrigerator is poised to
plunge through the Earth's atmosphere late Sunday, more than a year
after an astronaut tossed it overboard.

NASA and the U.S. Space Surveillance Network are tracking the object —
a 1,400-pound (635-kg) tank of toxic ammonia coolant thrown from the
international space station — to make sure it does not endanger people
on Earth. Exactly where the tank will inevitably fall is currently
unknown, though it is expected to re-enter Earth's atmosphere Sunday
afternoon or later that evening, NASA officials said.

************************************************** ************************************************** ***********

In the article, NASA says it would not be a good idea for anyone to
touch it. Apparently NASA is taking the responsibility for the refuse
entering earth's atmosphere. According to Wikipedia, a total of 17
countries participate in the International Space Station. It would
seem it would have been a very high priority of all those countries to
have a process in place to take care of the trash that is generated by
the Space Station. IIRC, there has been a space shuttle mission to
the ISS since it was thrown out, so that toxic ammonia coolant tank
could have been loaded up on the space shuttle and brought down to
earth, where the refuse could be dealt with more efficiently and
morally.

So what is the difference between this and normal ammonia? I'm not saying
this is what they should have done, I thought at the time it was a bit
silly, but was told then that no fixings were available to secure this tank
into a shuttle.
In this case are we saying it will make it through interact? I'd doubt it
personally, and in the grand scheme of things, the small amount of gass when
taken against the volume of the atmosphere is hardly any concern. Of
course, like anything, I have felt that using the heat of re entry to get
rid of junk was a risky and short sighted business, as this is how we ended
up with rubbish mountains in the plare stations and indeed contaminated the
environment generally. IE we start small and get bigger and nobody rethinks
it until something bad happens.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
wrote in message
...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27479972/

An excerpt from the article for fair use and to pique the interest of
readers and those who are alarmed at the amount of trash that has been
left in space and is defiling "the last frontier". Have we not
learned ANYTHING about the defilement of Earth? Apparently NOT!

By Tariq Malik
Senior editor

updated 8:15 p.m. ET, Fri., Oct. 31, 2008
A piece of space station trash the size of a refrigerator is poised to
plunge through the Earth's atmosphere late Sunday, more than a year
after an astronaut tossed it overboard.

NASA and the U.S. Space Surveillance Network are tracking the object —
a 1,400-pound (635-kg) tank of toxic ammonia coolant thrown from the
international space station — to make sure it does not endanger people
on Earth. Exactly where the tank will inevitably fall is currently
unknown, though it is expected to re-enter Earth's atmosphere Sunday
afternoon or later that evening, NASA officials said.

************************************************** ************************************************** ***********

In the article, NASA says it would not be a good idea for anyone to
touch it. Apparently NASA is taking the responsibility for the refuse
entering earth's atmosphere. According to Wikipedia, a total of 17
countries participate in the International Space Station. It would
seem it would have been a very high priority of all those countries to
have a process in place to take care of the trash that is generated by
the Space Station. IIRC, there has been a space shuttle mission to
the ISS since it was thrown out, so that toxic ammonia coolant tank
could have been loaded up on the space shuttle and brought down to
earth, where the refuse could be dealt with more efficiently and
morally.

On Oct 31, 9:51 pm, wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27479972/

An excerpt from the article for fair use and to pique the interest of
readers and those who are alarmed at the amount of trash that has been
left in space and is defiling "the last frontier". Have we not
learned ANYTHING about the defilement of Earth? Apparently NOT!

By Tariq Malik
Senior editor

updated 8:15 p.m. ET, Fri., Oct. 31, 2008
A piece of space station trash the size of a refrigerator is poised to
plunge through the Earth's atmosphere late Sunday, more than a year
after an astronaut tossed it overboard.

A one year loss of orbit is pretty impressive drag. Can we assume
they'd pushed it towards Earth?

With new and improved technology, why doesn't ISS orbit above 500 km?


NASA and the U.S. Space Surveillance Network are tracking the object —
a 1,400-pound (635-kg) tank of toxic ammonia coolant thrown from the
international space station — to make sure it does not endanger people
on Earth. Exactly where the tank will inevitably fall is currently
unknown, though it is expected to re-enter Earth's atmosphere Sunday
afternoon or later that evening, NASA officials said.

************************************************** ************************************************** ***********

In the article, NASA says it would not be a good idea for anyone to
touch it. Apparently NASA is taking the responsibility for the refuse
entering earth's atmosphere. According to Wikipedia, a total of 17
countries participate in the International Space Station. It would
seem it would have been a very high priority of all those countries to
have a process in place to take care of the trash that is generated by
the Space Station. IIRC, there has been a space shuttle mission to
the ISS since it was thrown out, so that toxic ammonia coolant tank
could have been loaded up on the space shuttle and brought down to
earth, where the refuse could be dealt with more efficiently and
morally.

Doing the right thing has never been any big part of our NASA.
Perhaps China or India will take on that responsibility. We've
outsourced most everything else, so why not trash collecting?

~ BG

On Nov 1, 1:27 am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
So what is the difference between this and normal ammonia? I'm not saying
this is what they should have done, I thought at the time it was a bit
silly, but was told then that no fixings were available to secure this tank
into a shuttle.
In this case are we saying it will make it through interact? I'd doubt it
personally, and in the grand scheme of things, the small amount of gass when
taken against the volume of the atmosphere is hardly any concern. Of
course, like anything, I have felt that using the heat of re entry to get
rid of junk was a risky and short sighted business, as this is how we ended
up with rubbish mountains in the plare stations and indeed contaminated the
environment generally. IE we start small and get bigger and nobody rethinks
it until something bad happens.

Brian

As of decades ago we've trashed our environment anyway, so what's the
difference? (is that what you're saying)

~ BG

wrote:

NASA and the U.S. Space Surveillance Network are tracking the object —
a 1,400-pound (635-kg) tank of toxic ammonia coolant thrown from the
international space station — to make sure it does not endanger people
on Earth. Exactly where the tank will inevitably fall is currently
unknown, though it is expected to re-enter Earth's atmosphere Sunday
afternoon or later that evening, NASA officials said.


Oh, that thing is finally coming down, huh?
I'm surprised it decayed that fast, given its mass versus size.
I'm amazed it took that weight of ammonia to run through the radiators
and keep everything cool; the Russians used glycol in Mir's radiators.
Let's see if the Navy takes a pot-shot at it on general principles. :-)

Pat

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
om...
So what is the difference between this and normal ammonia? I'm not saying
this is what they should have done, I thought at the time it was a bit
silly, but was told then that no fixings were available to secure this
tank into a shuttle.
In this case are we saying it will make it through interact? I'd doubt it
personally, and in the grand scheme of things, the small amount of gass
when taken against the volume of the atmosphere is hardly any concern. Of
course, like anything, I have felt that using the heat of re entry to get
rid of junk was a risky and short sighted business, as this is how we
ended up with rubbish mountains in the plare stations and indeed
contaminated the environment generally. IE we start small and get bigger
and nobody rethinks it until something bad happens.


An astronaut just tossed it overboard?
We should send our Local Authority street wardens
up their to issue a few on the spot fines. ;-)
--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

************************************************** ************************************************** ************

In the article, NASA says it would not be a good idea for anyone to
touch it. *Apparently NASA is taking the responsibility for the refuse
entering earth's atmosphere. *According to Wikipedia, a total of 17
countries participate in the International Space Station. *It would
seem it would have been a very high priority of all those countries to
have a process in place to take care of the trash that is generated by
the Space Station. *IIRC, there has been a space shuttle mission to
the ISS since it was thrown out, so that toxic ammonia coolant tank
could have been loaded up on the space shuttle and brought down to
earth, where the refuse could be dealt with more efficiently and
morally.

This is much ado about nothing..

Any ammonia falling down would be welcome.

Ya'll need to realize that farmers spray ammonia on their fields as
fertilizer.
It's a good thing.

On Nov 1, 7:20 am, lorad wrote:
************************************************** ************************************************** ************

In the article, NASA says it would not be a good idea for anyone to
touch it. Apparently NASA is taking the responsibility for the refuse
entering earth's atmosphere. According to Wikipedia, a total of 17
countries participate in the International Space Station. It would
seem it would have been a very high priority of all those countries to
have a process in place to take care of the trash that is generated by
the Space Station. IIRC, there has been a space shuttle mission to
the ISS since it was thrown out, so that toxic ammonia coolant tank
could have been loaded up on the space shuttle and brought down to
earth, where the refuse could be dealt with more efficiently and
morally.

This is much ado about nothing..

Any ammonia falling down would be welcome.

Ya'll need to realize that farmers spray ammonia on their fields as
fertilizer.
It's a good thing.

Unless it lands on your home, shortly before exploding.

~ BG

Yes, I really need to spell check my replies properly. Anyway. I was merely
saying that we seem to nearly always say that if its only a small amount of
rubbish, it is fine, but never re assess things as quantities grow. I mean,
eventually, the iss will be beyond economic use and if its left there will
plummet down somewhere. Has anyone thought about this?

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Nov 1, 1:27 am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
So what is the difference between this and normal ammonia? I'm not saying
this is what they should have done, I thought at the time it was a bit
silly, but was told then that no fixings were available to secure this
tank
into a shuttle.
In this case are we saying it will make it through interact? I'd doubt it
personally, and in the grand scheme of things, the small amount of gass
when
taken against the volume of the atmosphere is hardly any concern. Of
course, like anything, I have felt that using the heat of re entry to get
rid of junk was a risky and short sighted business, as this is how we
ended
up with rubbish mountains in the plare stations and indeed contaminated
the
environment generally. IE we start small and get bigger and nobody
rethinks
it until something bad happens.

Brian

As of decades ago we've trashed our environment anyway, so what's the
difference? (is that what you're saying)

~ BG

BradGuth wrote:

With new and improved technology, why doesn't ISS orbit above 500 km?

A maximum of about 425km is due to the rendezvous operational limits of
the Soyuz (Soyuz can hit 460km, but is lower due to fuel consumption
during rendezvous). Add the heavy-lifting limits of the shuttle and you
see the altitudes stay down in the mid 300km range.

Granted, the shuttle can reach a theoretical altitude of 960km, but
that's pretty much emptying the tanks to get there with practically zero
cargo. IIRC, the current record is around 600km (one of the Hubble
flights).

I'm sure the sights would be quite interesting from an altitude over
900km--I recall the one comment in a documentary about the flights to
Hubble where the crew were surprised with how different things (Earth)
looked compared to ISS flights.