Rubbish crisis?

There's been talk around for some years about risks of orbiting rubbish
in space. I haven't heard any official comment recently, but I think
the matter has gone past mere crisis: it's going to change space
business *now*. Because, look at those recent shuttle and space station
actions to avoid collisions that we are reading of: sooner or later, and
I expect sooner, one of those objects won't be seen approaching
collision, and then it happens. It's a gamble and the ISS and shuttle
cannot win it.

Now what? I hope there's after all, some good news out there. But the
odds seem against it.

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2009 Mar 23]

"Martha Adams" wrote in message
...
There's been talk around for some years about risks of orbiting rubbish in
space. I haven't heard any official comment recently, but I think the
matter has gone past mere crisis: it's going to change space business
*now*. Because, look at those recent shuttle and space station actions to
avoid collisions that we are reading of: sooner or later, and I expect
sooner, one of those objects won't be seen approaching collision, and then
it happens. It's a gamble and the ISS and shuttle cannot win it.

Now what? I hope there's after all, some good news out there. But the
odds seem against it.

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2009 Mar 23]

The shuttle has already had several collisions. One of the first was with
what is believed to have been a fleck of paint - put a hole in the
windshield.

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
The shuttle has already had several collisions. One of the first was with
what is believed to have been a fleck of paint - put a hole in the
windshield.

It damaged the outer pane only. The shuttle has multiple panes of material
in its windows. The outer pane can be replaced (maintenance on the ground)
when damaged.

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson

On Mar 23, 1:20�pm, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:
"Alan Erskine" wrote in message

...

The shuttle has already had several collisions. �One of the first was with
what is believed to have been a fleck of paint - put a hole in the
windshield.

It damaged the outer pane only. �The shuttle has multiple panes of material
in its windows. �The outer pane can be replaced (maintenance on the ground)
when damaged.

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." �-- Freeman Dyson

if it had been heavier, like a ounce or two it could of likely perced
the window and depressurized the orbiter

can a orbiter that lost atmosphere still land or will the electronics
over heat and shut down?

bob haller wrote:
can a orbiter that lost atmosphere still land or will the
electronics over heat and shut down?

If no-one in the crew were wearing a suit at the time, the condition
of the electronics is a don't care as IIRC, the Shuttle is not able to
perform an automated or remote controlled landing.

rick jones
--
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth...
where do you want to be today?
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:
If no-one in the crew were wearing a suit at the time, the condition
of the electronics is a don't care as IIRC, the Shuttle is not able to
perform an automated or remote controlled landing.


Theoretically, a recent upgrade does allow it to do that:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10518
If a Shuttle heading toward the ISS suffered ascent damage that could
endanger its reentry capability, this new system at least gives it a
possibility of recovery after the crew was recovered from the ISS via a
rescue Shuttle.

Pat

Rick Jones wrote:
bob haller wrote:

can a orbiter that lost atmosphere still land or will the
electronics over heat and shut down?


If no-one in the crew were wearing a suit at the time, the condition
of the electronics is a don't care as IIRC, the Shuttle is not able to
perform an automated or remote controlled landing.

rick jones

IMHO:

If you have a hole in the shuttle, that is big enough for decompression to happen fast enough for the crew not to have
time to put on their suits, the shuttle is pretty much doomed. In such a case hot plasma will enter the shuttle during
entry and you get a Columbia style catastrophic entry.

I don't think that electronics over heating after loss of cabin pressure is likely to be a problem. If the hole is big
enough for the shuttle to lose its air before entry, plasma entering the cabin is likely to be a more severe problem
than electronics over heating.

I might be wrong, this is just speculation on my part.


Alain Fournier

Martha Adams wrote:

There's been talk around for some years about risks of orbiting rubbish
in space. I haven't heard any official comment recently, but I think
the matter has gone past mere crisis: it's going to change space
business *now*. Because, look at those recent shuttle and space station
actions to avoid collisions that we are reading of: sooner or later, and
I expect sooner, one of those objects won't be seen approaching
collision, and then it happens. It's a gamble and the ISS and shuttle
cannot win it.

Now what? I hope there's after all, some good news out there. But the
odds seem against it.


Does anyone know about how the shuttle or more interestingly the space station would cope with different kinds of
impacts. I'd like to see something like a spreadsheet where you would have collision with different object sizes at
different velocities and an indication of the damage that should be expected from such a collision.


Alain Fournier

Rick Jones wrote:
bob haller wrote:
can a orbiter that lost atmosphere still land or will the
electronics over heat and shut down?

If no-one in the crew were wearing a suit at the time, the condition
of the electronics is a don't care as IIRC, the Shuttle is not able to
perform an automated or remote controlled landing.

Correct. RCO (Remote Controlled Orbiter) is an IFM that must be
installed at ISS.

The shuttle avionics cannot operate at below 8 psi, BTW. For a slow
leak, the orbiter can use its oxygen tanks to "feed the leak" for a
while and maintain 8 psi.

Alain Fournier wrote:

IMHO:

If you have a hole in the shuttle, that is big enough for
decompression to happen fast enough for the crew not to have time to
put on their suits, the shuttle is pretty much doomed. In such a case
hot plasma will enter the shuttle during entry and you get a Columbia
style catastrophic entry.

I don't think that electronics over heating after loss of cabin
pressure is likely to be a problem. If the hole is big enough for the
shuttle to lose its air before entry, plasma entering the cabin is
likely to be a more severe problem than electronics over heating.

I might be wrong, this is just speculation on my part.

It would depend where the pressure cabin was pierced at; if, for
instance the impact was on the rear wall of the cabin while the cargo
bay doors are open (as they are during the vast majority of overall
orbital flight time) then the area wouldn't be exposed to reentry
heating as it would be sealed inside the cargo bay during return.

Pat