|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Trash from Intl Space Station, tank of toxic ammonia coolant, expected to strike earth on 11/2. No other way?
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Trash from Intl Space Station, tank of toxic ammonia coolant,expected to strike earth on 11/2. No other way?
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Trash from Intl Space Station, tank of toxic ammonia coolant,expected to strike earth on 11/2. No other way?
On Nov 2, 12:49 am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
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 ISS could be trashed a piece at a time, with reasonable controlled reentry per item could put 99.9% of it's remaining mass into a given ocean that's full of expanding dead zones anyway. Terminating ISS shouldn't be all that insurmountable, although it'll likely cost us billions in order to do just that much. How about keeping it up there as another spendy Smithsonian museum, with an Rn222 ion thruster? (how many all-inclusive hundreds of billions would that cost us?) ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” http://www.alaskapublishing.com http://www.guarddogbooks.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Trash from Intl Space Station, tank of toxic ammonia coolant,expected to strike earth on 11/2. No other way?
Brian Gaff wrote: 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? I assume they will dump it in the Pacific, like Mir...using a Progress spacecraft as a retro module. Pat |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Trash from Intl Space Station, tank of toxic ammonia coolant, expected to strike earth on 11/2. No other way?
"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% |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Trash from Intl Space Station, tank of toxic ammonia coolant,expected to strike earth on 11/2. No other way?
It is often said that life came about from some "event" involving ammonia.
Any chances that NASA is actually conducting tests and the dumping of ammonia for a atmosheric re-entry is really a covert test to see if life will get created for a few moments during re-entry (only to burn up afterwards ?) Perhaps that ammonia was seeded with genes from the corpses held at area 51 and NASA hopes to grow some aliens from this ammonia ? Seriously, are there any fears that any portion of this tank will make it to sea level (aka: any chance of something hitting a farmer on a field ?) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Trash from Intl Space Station, tank of toxic ammonia coolant, expected to strike earth on 11/2. No other way?
"John Doe" wrote in message
... It is often said that life came about from some "event" involving ammonia. Involving, possibly but very complex. Any chances that NASA is actually conducting tests and the dumping of ammonia for a atmosheric re-entry is really a covert test to see if life will get created for a few moments during re-entry (only to burn up afterwards ?) Absolutely zero. Perhaps that ammonia was seeded with genes from the corpses held at area 51 and NASA hopes to grow some aliens from this ammonia ? Are you a whack job or just play one on TV? Seriously, are there any fears that any portion of this tank will make it to sea level (aka: any chance of something hitting a farmer on a field ?) chance... yes. But I'd bet on winning the lottery while being hit by lightning on a date with Julianne Moore first. -- Greg Moore Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Trash from Intl Space Station, tank of toxic ammonia coolant,expected to strike earth on 11/2. No other way?
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Trash from Intl Space Station, tank of toxic ammonia coolant,expected to strike earth on 11/2. No other way? | [email protected] | Space Shuttle | 17 | November 2nd 08 11:05 PM |
Liquid ammonia in space | Andrew Usher | Policy | 5 | March 12th 08 08:23 AM |
Liquid ammonia in space | Andrew Usher | Amateur Astronomy | 6 | March 12th 08 08:23 AM |
Toxic seas during Earth evolution | Ray Vingnutte | Misc | 0 | October 7th 05 07:10 AM |
new External Tank coating - more suitable for ET space station? | Owen Zurhellen | Technology | 2 | July 31st 05 02:29 AM |