Re: [meteorite-list] ‘Space junk’ crashes into Florida home from International Space Station, NASA says
What's the latest on that space junk that OSIRIS-REx brought back? > On 04/16/2024 7:14 PM EDT Michael Gilmer via Meteorite-list > wrote: > > > Sales of all space debris are hereby suspended until further notice. > > > On Tuesday, April 16, 2024, Michael Murray via Meteorite-list > wrote: > > > We need another sign: Just Say NO to “ The Rods From God”. > > > > > > __ > > Meteorite-list mailing list > > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > > __ > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] ‘Space junk’ crashes into Florida home from International Space Station, NASA says
Sales of all space debris are hereby suspended until further notice. On Tuesday, April 16, 2024, Michael Murray via Meteorite-list < meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote: > We need another sign: Just Say NO to “ The Rods From God”. > > > __ > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] ‘Space junk’ crashes into Florida home from International Space Station, NASA says
Will NASA pay for the damage to the guy's roof? On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 at 11:41, John Lutzon via Meteorite-list < meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote: > uh, watch that decimal point. Correction: how bout 1,763,680 Lbs. > > > On 04/16/2024 1:38 PM EDT John Lutzon via Meteorite-list < > meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote: > > > > > > And, there is still 17 million Lbs. just waiting for a delivery address. > Duck and cover! > > JL > > > > > On 04/16/2024 1:20 PM EDT Ben Fisler via Meteorite-list < > meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > At least it wasn’t “the Rods of God….” > > > Ben Fisler > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 16, 2024, at 8:36 AM, Michael Murray via Meteorite-list < > meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Long time referred to as “looming”, now we need signs out that say > “delivery imminent”. > > > > __ > > > > Meteorite-list mailing list > > > > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > > > > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > > __ > > > Meteorite-list mailing list > > > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > > > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > __ > > Meteorite-list mailing list > > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > __ > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] ‘Space junk’ crashes into Florida home from International Space Station, NASA says
We need another sign: Just Say NO to “ The Rods From God”. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] ‘Space junk’ crashes into Florida home from International Space Station, NASA says
uh, watch that decimal point. Correction: how bout 1,763,680 Lbs. > On 04/16/2024 1:38 PM EDT John Lutzon via Meteorite-list > wrote: > > > And, there is still 17 million Lbs. just waiting for a delivery address. Duck > and cover! > JL > > > On 04/16/2024 1:20 PM EDT Ben Fisler via Meteorite-list > > wrote: > > > > > > At least it wasn’t “the Rods of God….” > > Ben Fisler > > > > > > > On Apr 16, 2024, at 8:36 AM, Michael Murray via Meteorite-list > > > wrote: > > > > > > Long time referred to as “looming”, now we need signs out that say > > > “delivery imminent”. > > > __ > > > Meteorite-list mailing list > > > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > > > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > __ > > Meteorite-list mailing list > > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > __ > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] ‘Space junk’ crashes into Florida home from International Space Station, NASA says
And, there is still 17 million Lbs. just waiting for a delivery address. Duck and cover! JL > On 04/16/2024 1:20 PM EDT Ben Fisler via Meteorite-list > wrote: > > > At least it wasn’t “the Rods of God….” > Ben Fisler > > > > On Apr 16, 2024, at 8:36 AM, Michael Murray via Meteorite-list > > wrote: > > > > Long time referred to as “looming”, now we need signs out that say > > “delivery imminent”. > > __ > > Meteorite-list mailing list > > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > __ > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] ‘Space junk’ crashes into Florida home from International Space Station, NASA says
At least it wasn’t “the Rods of God….” Ben Fisler > On Apr 16, 2024, at 8:36 AM, Michael Murray via Meteorite-list > wrote: > > Long time referred to as “looming”, now we need signs out that say “delivery > imminent”. > __ > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] ‘Space junk’ crashes into Florida home from International Space Station, NASA says
Long time referred to as “looming”, now we need signs out that say “delivery imminent”. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] ‘Space junk’ crashes into Florida home from International Space Station, NASA says
‘Space junk’ crashes into Florida home from International Space Station, NASA says ALcom, Apr. 16, 2024 https://www.al.com/news/2024/04/space-junk-crashes-into-florida-home-from-international-space-station-nasa-says.html Object that slammed into Florida home was indeed space junk from ISS, NASA confirms By Mike Wall, SpaceCom, , Apr. 15, 2024 https://www.space.com/object-crash-florida-home-iss-space-junk-nasa-confirms Kessler Syndrome and the space debris problem By Mike< SpaceCom, July 14, 2022 https://www.space.com/kessler-syndrome-space-debris This feared space-junk cascade called Kessler Syndrome may have already begun. Yours, Paul H. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] space junk
I'd hazard that this is lightning damage, and the vitreous slag-like material is the remains of the melted shingles. There are some fragile-looking drips on the large fragment in image 4 that don't look like they could have survived high-speed impact through the roof. A Google image search for "lightning damage to roof" also shows similar holes in shingle roofs. On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Korotev, Randy via Meteorite-list < meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote: > A guy sent me these photos. > > https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qcnzxol29ypwi4q/AAAWTbYOJh-LTf1L7JRFaMTsa?dl=0 > > My guess: space junk. He'd be happy to sell it because he's got $1000 > deductible on his home owner's insurance. > > Contact me off line if you want his e-mail address. > > ~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+ > Randy L. Korotev > Research Professor > Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences > Washington University in Saint Louis > > > http://eps.wustl.edu/people/randy_korotev > http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/moon_meteorites.htm > > If you think you've found a meteorite, read these: > http://meteorites.wustl.edu/what_to_do.htm > http://meteorites.wustl.edu/realities.htm > > __ > > Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and the > Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > __ Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] space junk
A guy sent me these photos. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qcnzxol29ypwi4q/AAAWTbYOJh-LTf1L7JRFaMTsa?dl=0 My guess: space junk. He'd be happy to sell it because he's got $1000 deductible on his home owner's insurance. Contact me off line if you want his e-mail address. ~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+ Randy L. Korotev Research Professor Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences Washington University in Saint Louis http://eps.wustl.edu/people/randy_korotev http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/moon_meteorites.htm If you think you've found a meteorite, read these: http://meteorites.wustl.edu/what_to_do.htm http://meteorites.wustl.edu/realities.htm __ Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Space junk re-entry over Svalbard
http://norskmeteornettverk.no/wordpress/?p=1820 -- Steinar __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Space junk likely hit Pacific, despite Internet hoax
Space junk likely hit Pacific, despite Internet hoax claiming sightings over Okotoks. Calgary Herald, September 24, 2011. http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Space+junk+likely+Pacific+despite+Internet+hoax+claiming+sightings+over/5454317/story.html Yours, Paul H. __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Space junk?
Hi Mike - Space Junk? E.P. Grondine Man and Impact in the Americas __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
I wouldn't mind if it landed on my property - right onto Ebay! Cheers, Pete Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:41:27 -0800 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list _ __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Hi Greg- It is inaccurate to say that this object splashed down. In fact, much of it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is likely to be near zero. Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Actually, fish and marine life have a better chance of dying from getting hit on the head with stainless steel debris than the ammonia coolant. The coolant was vaporized during re-entry. Besides, I rather toss the tank into decay (with the flick of a finger!) than spend 10 million bringing it back via the space shuttle. Mike Bandli -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Catterton Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 10:41 AM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on land becouse of toxic hazards? I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the same time, I dont think that is right to do also. Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported has mislead me to think that it was more of a big deal then it is, but it is troubling to think that this was the best thing they could come up with. Surely it could have been returned to earth on a shuttle and disposed of properly. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:57 PM Hi Greg- It is inaccurate to say that this object splashed down. In fact, much of it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is likely to be near zero. Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:41:27 -0800 (PST), you wrote: Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! Yep, ammonia isn't good for fish. Which is why they are constantly dumping it out of their bodies-- into the water. If some of the ammonia happened to make it to the surface of the ocean, for a few minutes a small area would have a slightly higher concentration, which would quickly diffuse into the general fish-pee background. (Hint-- the ocean is kind of a big place). __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
I don't think the taxpayers would be to happy to hear NASA spent millions of dollars to remove a piece of space junk. Letting it enter back into the atmoshphere is the safe and cheapest way to go. Of course we could just let it stay up there and add to the many pieces of space junk already floating around putting astronauts lives in danger. Del --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 11:06 AM If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on land becouse of toxic hazards? I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the same time, I dont think that is right to do also. Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported has mislead me to think that it was more of a big deal then it is, but it is troubling to think that this was the best thing they could come up with. Surely it could have been returned to earth on a shuttle and disposed of properly. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:57 PM Hi Greg- It is inaccurate to say that this object splashed down. In fact, much of it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is likely to be near zero. Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
take your pick: http://news.aol.com/article/space-station-trash-plunging-to-earth/234755?icid=200100397x1212231854x1200798183 http://www.space.com/aol/081031-space-station-debris-reentry.html http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/07/19/spacejunk_spa.html just a few links about it. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:10 PM Hello Greg, Where do you read that an astronaut, ..threw it (ammonia tank) overboard (from the International Space Station) during a space walk in July 2007.? I find it highly unlikely that material would be purposely tossed into space to potentially be a floating target for future spacecraft and/or satellites to hit. I do not think NASA has the same mindset that some cruise ship operators have by throwing their bags of trash into the ocean. My thoughts! Greg Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection NaturesVault (eBay) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.LunarRock.com IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 1:41 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
why could they not have returned it to earth on a shuttle that was going to be returning to earth anyway? No extra cost involved there. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:14 PM I don't think the taxpayers would be to happy to hear NASA spent millions of dollars to remove a piece of space junk. Letting it enter back into the atmoshphere is the safe and cheapest way to go. Of course we could just let it stay up there and add to the many pieces of space junk already floating around putting astronauts lives in danger. Del --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 11:06 AM If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on land becouse of toxic hazards? I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the same time, I dont think that is right to do also. Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported has mislead me to think that it was more of a big deal then it is, but it is troubling to think that this was the best thing they could come up with. Surely it could have been returned to earth on a shuttle and disposed of properly. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:57 PM Hi Greg- It is inaccurate to say that this object splashed down. In fact, much of it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is likely to be near zero. Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Hi Greg- This thing was, in fact, deliberately discarded with the knowledge that it would reenter. It posed no risk to anything else because it was large enough to track, in a known orbit, and was sure to have a short lifetime in space. It had no potential to produce any additional debris. This isn't the first thing they scuttled from the ISS. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA Hello Greg, Where do you read that an astronaut, ..threw it (ammonia tank) overboard (from the International Space Station) during a space walk in July 2007.? I find it highly unlikely that material would be purposely tossed into space to potentially be a floating target for future spacecraft and/or satellites to hit. I do not think NASA has the same mindset that some cruise ship operators have by throwing their bags of trash into the ocean. My thoughts! Greg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
It is the first thing I was aware of, until reading more about it. I know what ifs are really meaningless, however... if it had landed on a school full of kids, Im sure the cost of returning to earth would have been very cheap compared to the loss of life. If it had impacted on a house or other private property, would NASA have been liable? The replies about this have been really good and informative, Thanks to all for your input. Greg --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:23 PM Hi Greg- This thing was, in fact, deliberately discarded with the knowledge that it would reenter. It posed no risk to anything else because it was large enough to track, in a known orbit, and was sure to have a short lifetime in space. It had no potential to produce any additional debris. This isn't the first thing they scuttled from the ISS. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA Hello Greg, Where do you read that an astronaut, ..threw it (ammonia tank) overboard (from the International Space Station) during a space walk in July 2007.? I find it highly unlikely that material would be purposely tossed into space to potentially be a floating target for future spacecraft and/or satellites to hit. I do not think NASA has the same mindset that some cruise ship operators have by throwing their bags of trash into the ocean. My thoughts! Greg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Hello Greg, Where do you read that an astronaut, ..threw it (ammonia tank) overboard (from the International Space Station) during a space walk in July 2007.? I find it highly unlikely that material would be purposely tossed into space to potentially be a floating target for future spacecraft and/or satellites to hit. I do not think NASA has the same mindset that some cruise ship operators have by throwing their bags of trash into the ocean. My thoughts! Greg Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection NaturesVault (eBay) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.LunarRock.com IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 1:41 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters?...snip Yeppers!!!---I'd sure hope you are the only one...(((rolling eyes))). I think this post should be nominated for the Emily Lutella Award. No, seriously-- that was pretty funny no matter how you intended it. It was good satire on GW, green-flavored victimism. Statistically, any remaining ammonia was 99.999% consumed in reentry: it has a very low boiling point--and there is no evidence anything including ammonia made it into the ocean. So it was really closer to air polution but you didn't make a case for that. The insight argued is too porous to hold a whif of ammonia. Sooo-- so far off reality they are fruitless to address in their entirety but using your own reasoning --I do know that the ammonia in your urine is a pollutant. If you are so morally outraged, I suggest you take any future pisses on your leg rather than allowing it into the water system to avoid future criminal acts yourself... drink it, bottle it, whatever-- just don't piss in my water nor on me again. Oh and under the new Administration your breath is a pollutant as well so try to hold it. Charter member of the Strained Gnat and Drank Camel Watcher Society Elton __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:06:38 -0800 (PST), you wrote: If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on land becouse of toxic hazards? 1. The hazards imagined for land debris are things like nitrogen tetraoxide and other potentially toxic propellants. 2. Toxicity is about concentration. Drink a cup of ammonia, and you are likely to have a bad (but possibly short) day. Dump a cup of ammonia in a swimming pool, and you'll be quite safe jumping in. (Heck, if you are in a public pool, a few cups of ammonia have most likely already been dumped in). __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Hi, Greg, Chris, All, Ecological impact is likely a true zero. We don't even know if ANY piece of the tank made it to ground or not. Odds are against. But I want to quibble with this: ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. The world is not a gigantic video game of utter destruction. The current lost rate is five per thousand ships. That amounts to about 300 ships a year. And the term lost includes all causes of being removed from service. Most lost ships are lost near coasts, on reefs, in collisions with other ships. They are damaged beyond the worth of saving and are scraped when they're lifted off and tugboated to a port. The classic lost at sea, where a ship sets out and vanishes, is unbelievably rare! Footnote data: http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D5673/8133.pdf Avast, matey! Sterling K. Webb --- - Original Message - From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:57 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA Hi Greg- It is inaccurate to say that this object splashed down. In fact, much of it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is likely to be near zero. Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Hi Chris, Thank you for replying in a short and easy way to describe the objects size being trackable. I won't begin to pretend to know about these things. The initial comment seemed like as hip-shot and I didn't think NASA or the astronaut deserved it. Best regards, Greg Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection NaturesVault (eBay) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.LunarRock.com IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault - Original Message - From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA Hi Greg- This thing was, in fact, deliberately discarded with the knowledge that it would reenter. It posed no risk to anything else because it was large enough to track, in a known orbit, and was sure to have a short lifetime in space. It had no potential to produce any additional debris. This isn't the first thing they scuttled from the ISS. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA Hello Greg, Where do you read that an astronaut, ..threw it (ammonia tank) overboard (from the International Space Station) during a space walk in July 2007.? I find it highly unlikely that material would be purposely tossed into space to potentially be a floating target for future spacecraft and/or satellites to hit. I do not think NASA has the same mindset that some cruise ship operators have by throwing their bags of trash into the ocean. My thoughts! Greg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Greg, my full respect for your cares about the environment. But I doubt that any ammonia reached the lower atmosphere. Besides, if there is one gouvernment outfit that has had a major positive impact on environmental protection in the past then its NASA. Svend www.meteorite-recon.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 7:41 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
This would require a new mission plan and millions of dollars in training exercises and mock-ups. The tank weighs 1400 lbs and it would have to be brought in the payload bay. A system would have to be designed and installed to hold the tank. I forget the figure, but there is a cost per pound in space flight and it is not cheap. When those payload bay doors open it costs $!! Bottom line: it's not feasible. Burn baby burn. Mike Bandli -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Catterton Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:22 AM To: Del Waterbury Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA why could they not have returned it to earth on a shuttle that was going to be returning to earth anyway? No extra cost involved there. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:14 PM I don't think the taxpayers would be to happy to hear NASA spent millions of dollars to remove a piece of space junk. Letting it enter back into the atmoshphere is the safe and cheapest way to go. Of course we could just let it stay up there and add to the many pieces of space junk already floating around putting astronauts lives in danger. Del --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 11:06 AM If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on land becouse of toxic hazards? I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the same time, I dont think that is right to do also. Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported has mislead me to think that it was more of a big deal then it is, but it is troubling to think that this was the best thing they could come up with. Surely it could have been returned to earth on a shuttle and disposed of properly. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:57 PM Hi Greg- It is inaccurate to say that this object splashed down. In fact, much of it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is likely to be near zero. Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
no hip shot was intended. I was basing my opinions on reports I have read concerning this and as I have said before, I am not as experienced at these things as some of you are and the reports I read made it out to be a major health risk to people if it was a land impact. that said, I figured the health risk to marine life would have been the same. I am not out to blast NASA or the atronaut, I just did not understand why they could not have simply returned it in a shuttle that was returning to earth. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:35 PM Hi Chris, Thank you for replying in a short and easy way to describe the objects size being trackable. I won't begin to pretend to know about these things. The initial comment seemed like as hip-shot and I didn't think NASA or the astronaut deserved it. Best regards, Greg Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection NaturesVault (eBay) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.LunarRock.com IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault - Original Message - From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA Hi Greg- This thing was, in fact, deliberately discarded with the knowledge that it would reenter. It posed no risk to anything else because it was large enough to track, in a known orbit, and was sure to have a short lifetime in space. It had no potential to produce any additional debris. This isn't the first thing they scuttled from the ISS. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA Hello Greg, Where do you read that an astronaut, ..threw it (ammonia tank) overboard (from the International Space Station) during a space walk in July 2007.? I find it highly unlikely that material would be purposely tossed into space to potentially be a floating target for future spacecraft and/or satellites to hit. I do not think NASA has the same mindset that some cruise ship operators have by throwing their bags of trash into the ocean. My thoughts! Greg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
There is established international law dealing with legal liability for damage or injury caused by space debris reaching the ground. All space missions (in the U.S., at least) consider the likelihood of material surviving reentry. It's a question of statistics, and the chance of damage is almost always extremely small. In rare cases where something very large is being returned, it is usual for the object to be scuttled under controlled circumstances, to ensure reentry over the ocean. This refrigeration unit did not require a semi-controlled reentry because it was very unlikely enough material would survive to the ground to matter, regardless of where the decay occurred. Of course, if an object should land on a school, it's easy to say how much cheaper it would have been to return it. But that logic only applies if you return everything, and that would be far, far more expensive than the cost of a single object hitting a school. In this case, given the size of debris remaining (if any), it's likely that something hitting a roof would just knock off some shingles and slide down. I'll bet your risk is much greater from being hit by something falling off an airplane than being hit by something reentering from space. And neither risk is high enough to spend much time worrying about! Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA It is the first thing I was aware of, until reading more about it. I know what ifs are really meaningless, however... if it had landed on a school full of kids, Im sure the cost of returning to earth would have been very cheap compared to the loss of life. If it had impacted on a house or other private property, would NASA have been liable? The replies about this have been really good and informative, Thanks to all for your input. Greg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:34:51 -0600, you wrote: The world is not a gigantic video game of utter destruction. The current lost rate is five per thousand ships. That amounts to about 300 ships a year. And the term lost includes all causes of being removed from service. On the other hand, there are literally thousands of cargo containers lost as sea every year-- and some of them probably contain stuff not overly fish-friendly. http://www.google.com/search?num=100hl=ensafe=offq=cargo+containers+lost+at+seabtnG=Search __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
G'Day Greg and all I thought I read that the tank was not stable enough to stand a trip back in the shuttle and could pose a risk to the shuttle and crew. Cheers Johnno - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA why could they not have returned it to earth on a shuttle that was going to be returning to earth anyway? No extra cost involved there. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:14 PM I don't think the taxpayers would be to happy to hear NASA spent millions of dollars to remove a piece of space junk. Letting it enter back into the atmoshphere is the safe and cheapest way to go. Of course we could just let it stay up there and add to the many pieces of space junk already floating around putting astronauts lives in danger. Del --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 11:06 AM If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on land becouse of toxic hazards? I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the same time, I dont think that is right to do also. Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported has mislead me to think that it was more of a big deal then it is, but it is troubling to think that this was the best thing they could come up with. Surely it could have been returned to earth on a shuttle and disposed of properly. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:57 PM Hi Greg- It is inaccurate to say that this object splashed down. In fact, much of it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is likely to be near zero. Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Hi Chris, Listees, It isn't a shade of illegal dumping at issue as far as I can tell. The possibly crass accusations that stated this thread might consider that transporting the old tank in a Space Shuttle back to earth would present a far greater danger to occupants and American residents in the landing path across the USA upon reentry rather than uncontrolled incineration it was given. If you don't believe that, why don't you volunteer for a return flight with that oversized ammonia tank strapped in next to you in the belly of the Shuttle as the 30 year old vehicle starts shaking like hell in a controlled fall your life depends upon in reentry. Even Iron Man might get a cold sweat on that one. There was no safer way, unless you wanted to build a booster for it and blast it off from a mobile launch platform in low earth orbit into the Sun :). Is this a sensible? Best wishes and great health, Doug -Original Message- From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 1:52 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA There is established international law dealing with legal liability for damage or injury caused by space debris reaching the ground. All space missions (in the U.S., at least) consider the likelihood of material surviving reentry. It's a question of statistics, and the chance of damage is almost always extremely small. In rare cases where something very large is being returned, it is usual for the object to be scuttled under controlled circumstances, to ensure reentry over the ocean. This refrigeration unit did not require a semi-controlled reentry because it was very unlikely enough material would survive to the ground to matter, regardless of where the decay occurred. Of course, if an object should land on a school, it's easy to say how much cheaper it would have been to return it. But that logic only applies if you return everything, and that would be far, far more expensive than the cost of a single object hitting a school. In this case, given the size of debris remaining (if any), it's likely that something hitting a roof would just knock off some shingles and slide down. I'll bet your risk is much greater from being hit by something falling off an airplane than being hit by something reentering from space. And neither risk is high enough to spend much time worrying about! Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA It is the first thing I was aware of, until reading more about it. I know what ifs are really meaningless, however... if it had landed on a school full of kids, Im sure the cost of returning to earth would have been very cheap compared to the loss of life. If it had impacted on a house or other private property, would NASA have been liable? The replies about this have been really good and informative, Thanks to all for your input. Greg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
The possibly crass accusations that stated this thread... I take it as a simple misunderstanding, perhaps a reasonable one given the way things like this are covered in the popular press. The replies were reasonable and friendly, as was Greg's response. Nice to see... civility is sometimes in short supply around here. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 2:11 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA Hi Chris, Listees, It isn't a shade of illegal dumping at issue as far as I can tell. The possibly crass accusations that stated this thread might consider that transporting the old tank in a Space Shuttle back to earth would present a far greater danger to occupants and American residents in the landing path across the USA upon reentry rather than uncontrolled incineration it was given. If you don't believe that, why don't you volunteer for a return flight with that oversized ammonia tank strapped in next to you in the belly of the Shuttle as the 30 year old vehicle starts shaking like hell in a controlled fall your life depends upon in reentry. Even Iron Man might get a cold sweat on that one. There was no safer way, unless you wanted to build a booster for it and blast it off from a mobile launch platform in low earth orbit into the Sun :). Is this a sensible? Best wishes and great health, Doug __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
so long as it does not leave a sheen, the coast guard, won't care. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Darren Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Darren Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 3:02 PM On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:34:51 -0600, you wrote: The world is not a gigantic video game of utter destruction. The current lost rate is five per thousand ships. That amounts to about 300 ships a year. And the term lost includes all causes of being removed from service. On the other hand, there are literally thousands of cargo containers lost as sea every year-- and some of them probably contain stuff not overly fish-friendly. http://www.google.com/search?num=100hl=ensafe=offq=cargo+containers+lost+at+seabtnG=Search __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
I will state again, from the reports I read, it was supposed to pose a serious health risk to anyone who would have come into contact with it had there been a land impact... that said, I assumed that the same would be for marine life. I felt that if that was the case, it was very reckless of NASA to simply toss it out to fall to earth. Again, I am new to this and do not understand all the things involved. All reports I read stated that several pieces would survive re entry and some would be up to 40-50 lbs... I may not have fully understood the issue, but I do feel some comments directed to me were very insulting. I have stated before I am newer to this and do not understand everything involved. while several of you have been polite and helpful, I am left feeling that certain ones who responded need to be more considerate of people who are new to this and still learning. Its not as if I publicly insulted anyone here and for some of the comments I have recieved I feel are totally uncalled for. I do understand the safety issues involved with returning it to earth, and the costs... none of which was explained in the news reports... that is why I felt NASA was reckless and should be held liable - I was not properly informed and took the reports at face value. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 4:11 PM Hi Chris, Listees, It isn't a shade of illegal dumping at issue as far as I can tell. The possibly crass accusations that stated this thread might consider that transporting the old tank in a Space Shuttle back to earth would present a far greater danger to occupants and American residents in the landing path across the USA upon reentry rather than uncontrolled incineration it was given. If you don't believe that, why don't you volunteer for a return flight with that oversized ammonia tank strapped in next to you in the belly of the Shuttle as the 30 year old vehicle starts shaking like hell in a controlled fall your life depends upon in reentry. Even Iron Man might get a cold sweat on that one. There was no safer way, unless you wanted to build a booster for it and blast it off from a mobile launch platform in low earth orbit into the Sun :). Is this a sensible? Best wishes and great health, Doug -Original Message- From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 1:52 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA There is established international law dealing with legal liability for damage or injury caused by space debris reaching the ground. All space missions (in the U.S., at least) consider the likelihood of material surviving reentry. It's a question of statistics, and the chance of damage is almost always extremely small. In rare cases where something very large is being returned, it is usual for the object to be scuttled under controlled circumstances, to ensure reentry over the ocean. This refrigeration unit did not require a semi-controlled reentry because it was very unlikely enough material would survive to the ground to matter, regardless of where the decay occurred. Of course, if an object should land on a school, it's easy to say how much cheaper it would have been to return it. But that logic only applies if you return everything, and that would be far, far more expensive than the cost of a single object hitting a school. In this case, given the size of debris remaining (if any), it's likely that something hitting a roof would just knock off some shingles and slide down. I'll bet your risk is much greater from being hit by something falling off an airplane than being hit by something reentering from space. And neither risk is high enough to spend much time worrying about! Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA It is the first thing I was aware of, until reading more about it. I know what ifs are really meaningless, however... if it had landed on a school full of kids, Im sure the cost of returning to earth would have been very cheap compared to the loss of life. If it had impacted on a house or other private property, would NASA have been liable? The replies about this have been really good and informative, Thanks to all for your input. Greg
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Can we take this to a NASA or SPACE JUNK list. This has nothing to do with meteorites, though interesting, has run its coarse and filled my inbox. Michael Farmer --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 12:21 PM why could they not have returned it to earth on a shuttle that was going to be returning to earth anyway? No extra cost involved there. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:14 PM I don't think the taxpayers would be to happy to hear NASA spent millions of dollars to remove a piece of space junk. Letting it enter back into the atmoshphere is the safe and cheapest way to go. Of course we could just let it stay up there and add to the many pieces of space junk already floating around putting astronauts lives in danger. Del --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 11:06 AM If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on land becouse of toxic hazards? I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the same time, I dont think that is right to do also. Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported has mislead me to think that it was more of a big deal then it is, but it is troubling to think that this was the best thing they could come up with. Surely it could have been returned to earth on a shuttle and disposed of properly. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:57 PM Hi Greg- It is inaccurate to say that this object splashed down. In fact, much of it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is likely to be near zero. Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:28:08 -0800 (PST), you wrote: I may not have fully understood the issue, but I do feel some comments directed to me were very insulting. Oh, they're just in the tank for ammonia. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
No problem Greg C. Ironically, I just posted based on the posts (press!) your reply got on the list, and of course qualified it by calling it possible so as to report rather than inject my opinion. Had not yet seen your recent clarification in the flurry of responses. NASA has done some shameful things, but if one points one specific out in a judgemental way, we should be careful to be specific and check our own sources and have a defensible argument. Thankfully this was not one of NASA's blunders. In addition, if it is ISS related, NASA is not alone, but rather part of an international team of accomplices and taxpayers ;) After being on the list longer, it seems friendly advice not to shame anyone, including NASA, unless you're enjoying a heated exchange, the list never fails, in which case it is nice to have reasonable facts to back up claims, rather than just tough talk (not referring to you at all with this). And the longer you are here the harder it will be for anyone to peel off your own heat-shield tiles :) Another ironic thing about the list, is ocassionally we lose new members who attempt to start their own forum after they participate in the heated exchanges and decide they can do a better job elsewhere on the www. They then point to heated exchanges on the list and try to draw list members by saying they moderate on their sites and the list is a mess. Some dealers think this draws business away from them, others are frustrated with all the places they must go for information. I truly hope you enjoy this list and contribute for our benefit, and do not feel that way. This list is kinda fun in that respect, it is peer reviewed by the best of the best - and that is the best it gets for amateurs. Welcome to the list, and please be sure to encourage all the meteorite people you know to use this great resource as a first stop for their meteorite interests. Best wishes Doug -Original Message- From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 3:28 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA I will state again, from the reports I read, it was supposed to pose a serious health risk to anyone who would have come into contact with it had there been a land impact... that said, I assumed that the same would be for marine life. I felt that if that was the case, it was very reckless of NASA to simply toss it out to fall to earth. Again, I am new to this and do not understand all the things involved. All reports I read stated that several pieces would survive re entry and some would be up to 40-50 lbs... I may not have fully understood the issue, but I do feel some comments directed to me were very insulting. I have stated before I am newer to this and do not understand everything involved. while several of you have been polite and helpful, I am left feeling that certain ones who responded need to be more considerate of people who are new to this and still learning. Its not as if I publicly insulted anyone here and for some of the comments I have recieved I feel are totally uncalled for. I do understand the safety issues involved with returning it to earth, and the costs... none of which was explained in the news reports... that is why I felt NASA was reckless and should be held liable - I was not properly informed and took the reports at face value. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 4:11 PM Hi Chris, Listees, It isn't a shade of illegal dumping at issue as far as I can tell. The possibly crass accusations that stated this thread might consider that transporting the old tank in a Space Shuttle back to earth would present a far greater danger to occupants and American residents in the landing path across the USA upon reentry rather than uncontrolled incineration it was given. If you don't believe that, why don't you volunteer for a return flight with that oversized ammonia tank strapped in next to you in the belly of the Shuttle as the 30 year old vehicle starts shaking like hell in a controlled fall your life depends upon in reentry. Even Iron Man might get a cold sweat on that one. There was no safer way, unless you wanted to build a booster for it and blast it off from a mobile launch platform in low earth orbit into the Sun :). Is this a sensible? Best wishes and great health, Doug -Original Message- From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 1:52 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA There is established international law dealing with legal liability for damage or injury caused by space debris reaching the ground. All space
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
I think it's worth pointing out that this object would not pose a collision risk to anything in space. It would orbit in the vicinity of the ISS while it's altitude slowly decayed. Remember of course that the ISS needs its orbit boosing periodically to prevent it from suffering the same fate. There was no environmental impact from Skylab, Mir or, tragically, Columbia so I don't think a small module is likely to cause too many problems. NASA are an easy target but I think they do a great job considering the political constraints they have to work under. (I suppose I would say that. As a UK citizen, I'm not footing the bill) Rob McCafferty --- On Tue, 11/4/08, Darren Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Darren Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 7:06 AM On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:41:27 -0800 (PST), you wrote: Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! Yep, ammonia isn't good for fish. Which is why they are constantly dumping it out of their bodies-- into the water. If some of the ammonia happened to make it to the surface of the ocean, for a few minutes a small area would have a slightly higher concentration, which would quickly diffuse into the general fish-pee background. (Hint-- the ocean is kind of a big place). __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Space junk re-entry just misses Chilean jet liner
Burning space junk falls near passenger plane NZPA | Wednesday, 28 March 2007 The Civil Aviation Authority will investigate how falling space junk came within kilometres of a passenger flight into Auckland today. The pilot of the Chilean plane saw the burning debris both in front and behind the aircraft while flying across the Pacific before landing safely at Auckland International Airport, One News reported tonight. Russian authorities had warned an obsolete satellite was expected to fall in the area, but it happened 12 hours early. A CAA spokesman said details had not yet been passed on to the authority, but a safety investigation would be launched once a report on the incident was received. -- Kevin. _ Advertisement: Want FREE talk text to 5 Telstra numbers? Find out how http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fadsfac%2Enet%2Flink%2Easp%3Fcc%3DTEL243%2E40035%2E0%26clk%3D1%26creativeID%3D56076_t=761565722_r=Hotmail_email_tagline_1March07_m=EXT __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk re-entry just misses Chilean jet liner
So far, I've heard nothing to make me think that anything from space, natural or otherwise, came within a few kilometers of this plane. Is there anything to support this other than the report of the pilot? I've found that pilots, in general, provide some of the worst quality meteor reports. I'm doubtful that many pilots are capable of judging the distance to a meteor. Odds are, this thing actually burned up many kilometers above the plane. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Kevin Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:25 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk re-entry just misses Chilean jet liner Burning space junk falls near passenger plane NZPA | Wednesday, 28 March 2007 The Civil Aviation Authority will investigate how falling space junk came within kilometres of a passenger flight into Auckland today. The pilot of the Chilean plane saw the burning debris both in front and behind the aircraft while flying across the Pacific before landing safely at Auckland International Airport, One News reported tonight. Russian authorities had warned an obsolete satellite was expected to fall in the area, but it happened 12 hours early. A CAA spokesman said details had not yet been passed on to the authority, but a safety investigation would be launched once a report on the incident was received. -- Kevin. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk re-entry just misses Chilean jet liner
--- Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Odds are, this thing actually burned up many kilometers above the plane. Chris The pilot also claims to have herd a loud noise which means it must have been pretty close to hear that above the sound of the plane. Also he saw pieces in front of and behind him so he was probably actually inside the debris field. Apparantly the aviation officials (CAA) in New Zealand was informed by the russians about the space debris dumping which is a relitively common occurance here apparantly but the debris entered the atmosphere 12 hours early for some reason and planes were in the area. An aerolinas argentinas flight was also entering the area (From the opposite direction) and was warned of the unexpected re-entry but the pilot decided to continue their flight and they didnt witness anything. The flight was inside auckland internationals control zone but still over the pacific ocean (From what I understand from local news here) so the debris fell in the ocean so no search and recovery effort is possible. Cheers DEAN Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk re-entry just misses Chilean jet liner
--- Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Odds are, this thing actually burned up many kilometers above the plane. Chris The pilot also claims to have herd a loud noise which means it must have been pretty close to hear that above the sound of the plane. Also he saw pieces in front of and behind him so he was probably actually inside the debris field. Apparantly the aviation officials (CAA) in New Zealand was informed by the russians about the space debris dumping which is a relitively common occurance here apparantly but the debris entered the atmosphere 12 hours early for some reason and planes were in the area. An aerolinas argentinas flight was also entering the area (From the opposite direction) and was warned of the unexpected re-entry but the pilot decided to continue their flight and they didnt witness anything. The flight was inside auckland internationals control zone but still over the pacific ocean (From what I understand from local news here) so the debris fell in the ocean so no search and recovery effort is possible. Cheers DEAN Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. http://games.yahoo.com/games/front __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk re-entry just misses Chilean jet liner
Courious as to how he saw the debris BEHIND his aircraft.. didn't know that they had a rear view mirror on those birds Richard Rumble -Original Message- From: Kevin Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mar 29, 2007 1:25 PM To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk re-entry just misses Chilean jet liner Burning space junk falls near passenger plane NZPA | Wednesday, 28 March 2007 The Civil Aviation Authority will investigate how falling space junk came within kilometres of a passenger flight into Auckland today. The pilot of the Chilean plane saw the burning debris both in front and behind the aircraft while flying across the Pacific before landing safely at Auckland International Airport, One News reported tonight. Russian authorities had warned an obsolete satellite was expected to fall in the area, but it happened 12 hours early. A CAA spokesman said details had not yet been passed on to the authority, but a safety investigation would be launched once a report on the incident was received. -- Kevin. _ Advertisement: Want FREE talk text to 5 Telstra numbers? Find out how http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fadsfac%2Enet%2Flink%2Easp%3Fcc%3DTEL243%2E40035%2E0%26clk%3D1%26creativeID%3D56076_t=761565722_r=Hotmail_email_tagline_1March07_m=EXT __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk re-entry just misses Chilean jetliner
It would be normal to hear sonic booms if the plane was within 100 km or so of the object, which could easily be many kilometers higher. I've got many pilot reports of meteors level with or below the plane, when this was clearly not the case. Of course, typical meteors that are 100s of kilometers away may be seen below the plane (but distances are usually reported too close by one or two orders of magnitude). While it certainly isn't impossible for meteoroids or space junk to survive (burning) to aircraft cruise heights, it's not common. Until I hear evidence other than just the pilot's report, I'll assume that what actually happened was far less dramatic than what is being reported. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: dean bessey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 4:16 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk re-entry just misses Chilean jetliner The pilot also claims to have herd a loud noise which means it must have been pretty close to hear that above the sound of the plane. Also he saw pieces in front of and behind him so he was probably actually inside the debris field. Apparantly the aviation officials (CAA) in New Zealand was informed by the russians about the space debris dumping which is a relitively common occurance here apparantly but the debris entered the atmosphere 12 hours early for some reason and planes were in the area. An aerolinas argentinas flight was also entering the area (From the opposite direction) and was warned of the unexpected re-entry but the pilot decided to continue their flight and they didnt witness anything. The flight was inside auckland internationals control zone but still over the pacific ocean (From what I understand from local news here) so the debris fell in the ocean so no search and recovery effort is possible. Cheers DEAN __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk re-entry just misses Chilean jetliner
Hi, Since the Progress module was still docked with the ISS when this happened, it seems it was a natural bolide, probably far, far away from the plane. If so, we missed a chance to start a new and very exclusive Hammer List! A little scribbled arithmetic shows that the average total upper surface area exposed by all the commercial air flights of all the world's airlines summed up by the time they spend in the air amounts to the same collisional cross-section as about 10 square kilometers of land down here on the planet. Probably have to wait thousands of years for a meteorite hit on a plane... Sterling K. Webb -- - Original Message - From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 4:29 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk re-entry just misses Chilean jetliner So far, I've heard nothing to make me think that anything from space, natural or otherwise, came within a few kilometers of this plane. Is there anything to support this other than the report of the pilot? I've found that pilots, in general, provide some of the worst quality meteor reports. I'm doubtful that many pilots are capable of judging the distance to a meteor. Odds are, this thing actually burned up many kilometers above the plane. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Kevin Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:25 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk re-entry just misses Chilean jet liner Burning space junk falls near passenger plane NZPA | Wednesday, 28 March 2007 The Civil Aviation Authority will investigate how falling space junk came within kilometres of a passenger flight into Auckland today. The pilot of the Chilean plane saw the burning debris both in front and behind the aircraft while flying across the Pacific before landing safely at Auckland International Airport, One News reported tonight. Russian authorities had warned an obsolete satellite was expected to fall in the area, but it happened 12 hours early. A CAA spokesman said details had not yet been passed on to the authority, but a safety investigation would be launched once a report on the incident was received. -- Kevin. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk re-entry just misses Chilean jet liner
One has to just love Harvey Nininger. A man very much ahead of his time. Though there are more aircraft in the air today, and they fly at higher altitudes than in Nininger's time, there are also many more automobiles these days. Best! --AL Nininger Moment #17 - Air Pilots and Meteor Hazards During Nininger's time a number of airpilots reported having to take evasive steps to prevent collisions with falling meteors. One such newspaper reported an startling account of how a resourceful pilot battled a shower of meteors by making a serious of dips and swerves to avoid the incoming falling meteors saving himself, his eleven passengers, as well as the aircraft. One other pilot was said to have dipped his right wing to avoid a similar collision of a meteor which happened in Nebraska. Yet another pilot near Cheyenne Wyoming said he narrowly escaped injury when en-countering one of those pestiferous fiery projectiles which threaten to side swipe him from the left. He ducked, however and the missile sailed by, leaving him unharmed. From the Standpoint of Nininger who had been studying meteoritic events and falls and spending much time at it, he considered the reports humorous at best. Nininger reasoned that there were about two thousand times more automobiles on the ground than airplanes in the air. Meteors reaching the lower atmosphere where these pilots saw these events would certainly reach the ground also, yet at that time no recorded automobile had been struck. A highly reported case happening in Crawfordville, Indiana had been discredited by scientists who investigated the matter. Nininger stated that you would expect one thousand automobile impacts for every one aircraft strike. The stories were even really more incredible for another reason. Astronomers know that the fall of a meteor is an event most often seen in the higher atmosphere. Only two exceptions were noted where a meteor came closer to the ground than 4 miles. The vast majority of them extinguishing before they come within ten miles of the ground. Nininger stated that in other words, the meteor, or the light resulting from a meteorite's [meteoroids] encounter with the Earth's atmosphere is limited to the region of the stratosphere, far above any height ever reach by airplanes of that day in ordinary flying. Nininger knew of the fall of those cited above and concluded that the second pilot who thought he saw the meteor below him, plotted the meteor height at the burnout point at about 17 miles high, above the northeastern New Mexico soil. The second pilot who saw the same meteor fall was slightly more than a hundred miles from it at its nearest approach. The pilot over Nebraska that dipped his wing to avoid collision was 68 miles south of the line over which the dreaded missile was speeding at an elevation of approximately 20 miles. Nininger concluded that pilots are no less reliable in such matters than are ground observers, but the fact is that no one is able to judge the distance from him of a bright, dazzling light. He concluded that pilots apparently share the ignorance of the general public as the to the behavior of meteorites. Nininger stated that hundreds of other examples could be cited similar to the high school super- intending who told him exactly where a meteorite had landed in the neighboring field. From where he stood he was confident and pointed out the fall location. Fortunately, he knew the hour and minute of the fall and gave an eloquent description of the phenomenon, which sounded familiar to Nininger, as the story had been told by observers from all the way where they stood to where the meteorite had landed some 350 miles away It is absolutely impossible for any single observer to judge the distance of a meteor. It's location can be determine only by a crossline survey. To this, pilots might contribute considerable information if they would take account of their exact location upon sighting and determine with their instruments the exact direction and altitude of the point where the meteor vanishes. Also recording the angle of decent would prove helpful. A pilots observation using these methods would be more than helpful than a person on the ground without any instruments to record what they see. Nininger also stated that at that time no report from an airpilot had ever been used to calculate the fall of a meteorite. He believed however that with his methods being noted that such reports could be very valuable. The Nininger Moments are articles or books written originally by Harvey Nininger and put into a consolidated form by Al Mitterling. Some of the items written in the moments might be old out dated material and the reader is advised to keep this in mind. --AL Mitterling Chris Peterson wrote: So far, I've heard nothing to make me think that anything from space, natural or otherwise, came within a few kilometers of this plane. Is
[meteorite-list] SPACE JUNK
Hi, In addition to the 700-odd pieces of China's self-shot-down satellite, many of which will work their way down to meteor like re-entries at various future dates, you can add 1100+ more pieces of defunct spaceware: http://spaceweather.com/ Australian astronomer Ray Palmer was photographing the Southern Cross from his observatory in Western Australia on Feb. 19th when a flaming plume cut across the Milky Way. I had no idea what it was, he says. It was moving very slowly and I was able to track it for 35 minutes. In mid-apparition the object exploded. Gordon Garradd of New South Wales photographed an expanding cloud filled with specks of debris. Tim Thorpe of South Australia saw it, too. Quite a surreal scene, he says. What was it? It was a mystery for almost 24 hours until satellite expert Daniel Deak matched the trajectory of the plume in Palmer's photo with the orbit of a derelict rocket booster--a Briz-M, catalog number 28944. One year ago, the Briz-M sat atop a Russian Proton rocket that left Earth on Feb. 28, 2006, carrying an Arabsat-4A communications satellite. Shortly after launch, the rocket malfunctioned, leaving the satellite in the wrong orbit and the Briz-M looping around Earth partially-filled with fuel. On Feb. 19, 2007, for reasons unknown, the fuel tanks ruptured over Australia. Jon P. Boers of the USAF Space Surveillance System confirms the ID and notes later, on the other side of the world, our radar saw 500+ pieces in that orbit. Today the count is up to fragments. [We're seeing] more fragments as the cloud expands, he explains. One thousand-plus fragments makes this a major breakup event, says Mark Matney of NASA's Orbital Debris Office at the Johnson Space Center. There is no immediate threat to the space station, but we're analyzing the orbits to assess any long-term hazard. Unlike recent high profile breakups, Briz-M is in an orbit that is difficult for most radars to see, adds Boers. The generation of element sets on all the pieces will take weeks to accomplish. Maybe the Russian junker ran into some piece of the Chinese junker? Depending on the orbit, some of this stuff will stay up for generations and some will come down (to make holes in New Hampshire ponds?) Since the Briz-M seems to have exploded in all directions, we're likely to get some pieces down before too long. There's a very colorful photo of the explosive trail, visible for 35 minutes, as the Astronomy Picture of the Day for today (02-22-07): http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html Sterling K. Webb __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] SPACE JUNK
Hi, In addition to the 700-odd pieces of China's self-shot-down satellite, many of which will work their way down to meteor like re-entries at various future dates, you can add 1100+ more pieces of defunct spaceware: http://spaceweather.com/ Australian astronomer Ray Palmer was photographing the Southern Cross from his observatory in Western Australia on Feb. 19th when a flaming plume cut across the Milky Way. I had no idea what it was, he says. It was moving very slowly and I was able to track it for 35 minutes. In mid-apparition the object exploded. Gordon Garradd of New South Wales photographed an expanding cloud filled with specks of debris. Tim Thorpe of South Australia saw it, too. Quite a surreal scene, he says. What was it? It was a mystery for almost 24 hours until satellite expert Daniel Deak matched the trajectory of the plume in Palmer's photo with the orbit of a derelict rocket booster--a Briz-M, catalog number 28944. One year ago, the Briz-M sat atop a Russian Proton rocket that left Earth on Feb. 28, 2006, carrying an Arabsat-4A communications satellite. Shortly after launch, the rocket malfunctioned, leaving the satellite in the wrong orbit and the Briz-M looping around Earth partially-filled with fuel. On Feb. 19, 2007, for reasons unknown, the fuel tanks ruptured over Australia. Jon P. Boers of the USAF Space Surveillance System confirms the ID and notes later, on the other side of the world, our radar saw 500+ pieces in that orbit. Today the count is up to fragments. [We're seeing] more fragments as the cloud expands, he explains. One thousand-plus fragments makes this a major breakup event, says Mark Matney of NASA's Orbital Debris Office at the Johnson Space Center. There is no immediate threat to the space station, but we're analyzing the orbits to assess any long-term hazard. Unlike recent high profile breakups, Briz-M is in an orbit that is difficult for most radars to see, adds Boers. The generation of element sets on all the pieces will take weeks to accomplish. Maybe the Russian junker ran into some piece of the Chinese junker? Depending on the orbit, some of this stuff will stay up for generations and some will come down (to make holes in New Hampshire ponds?) Since the Briz-M seems to have exploded in all directions, we're likely to get some pieces down before too long. There's a very colorful photo of the explosive trail, visible for 35 minutes, as the Astronomy Picture of the Day for today (02-22-07): http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html Sterling K. Webb __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space Junk Lights Up Skies Over Australia
G'day List, I read this story and the following line struck me as odd. calls reporting an extremely bright light and two explosions... I would not have thought that space junk would explode. Is this a correct assumption? Hopefully one of our knowledgeable list members can add something to this. Cheers, Jeff Kuyken I.M.C.A. #3085 www.meteorites.com.au - Original Message - From: Ron Baalke To: Meteorite Mailing List Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 3:00 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space Junk Lights Up Skies Over Australia http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/26/1093456733056.html?oneclick=tru e Space junk lights up skies The Age (Australia) August 26, 2004 It may have caused a stir on earth, but a bright light over south-western NSW last night was not a meteor, an astronomer said today. Police stations from Mount Druitt to Goulburn received dozens of phone calls reporting an extremely bright light and two explosions about 11.30pm (AEST) yesterday. Goulburn police sergeant Joe Fitzpatrick was on patrol in his police car when he saw an intense light in the sky to the north-west. It was a bluey-green colour ... certainly bright enough to attract the attention of all those around me, Sgt Fitzpatrick said. The moving light brightened for several seconds and then burned out, he said. When I first saw it I thought it was a firework or a flare. I'd compare it to the PolAir helicopter turning its light on, he said. The light was most likely caused by nothing more than space junk burning up, said astronomer Vince Ford, from Canberra's Mount Stromlo Observatory. Sounds like a bit of space junk, a piece of old rocket casing or a fuel cell, Mr Ford said. My best guess: a small bit of aluminium rocket casing, causing an extremely bright blue-green light as it burned (out). He said the metal was unlikely to have made a sound entering the atmosphere 30km above Earth. With tens of thousands of pieces of discarded shuttle materials congesting earth's atmosphere such sightings were becoming more frequent, Mr Ford said. What many people believe to be shooting stars are actually stray nuts and bolts burning up on re-entry, he said. Although up to 10 meteors were visible in an hour in a dark sky, spotting a piece of space junk as large as last night's sighting was still reasonably rare, he said. __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space Junk Lights Up Skies Over Australia
Hi Jeff I asume the explotions were from the object going from supersonic to subsonic. Best wishes Lars Pedersen - Original Message - From: Jeff Kuyken [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 10:56 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space Junk Lights Up Skies Over Australia G'day List, I read this story and the following line struck me as odd. calls reporting an extremely bright light and two explosions... I would not have thought that space junk would explode. Is this a correct assumption? Hopefully one of our knowledgeable list members can add something to this. Cheers, Jeff Kuyken I.M.C.A. #3085 www.meteorites.com.au - Original Message - From: Ron Baalke To: Meteorite Mailing List Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 3:00 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space Junk Lights Up Skies Over Australia http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/26/1093456733056.html?oneclick=tru e Space junk lights up skies The Age (Australia) August 26, 2004 It may have caused a stir on earth, but a bright light over south-western NSW last night was not a meteor, an astronomer said today. Police stations from Mount Druitt to Goulburn received dozens of phone calls reporting an extremely bright light and two explosions about 11.30pm (AEST) yesterday. Goulburn police sergeant Joe Fitzpatrick was on patrol in his police car when he saw an intense light in the sky to the north-west. It was a bluey-green colour ... certainly bright enough to attract the attention of all those around me, Sgt Fitzpatrick said. The moving light brightened for several seconds and then burned out, he said. When I first saw it I thought it was a firework or a flare. I'd compare it to the PolAir helicopter turning its light on, he said. The light was most likely caused by nothing more than space junk burning up, said astronomer Vince Ford, from Canberra's Mount Stromlo Observatory. Sounds like a bit of space junk, a piece of old rocket casing or a fuel cell, Mr Ford said. My best guess: a small bit of aluminium rocket casing, causing an extremely bright blue-green light as it burned (out). He said the metal was unlikely to have made a sound entering the atmosphere 30km above Earth. With tens of thousands of pieces of discarded shuttle materials congesting earth's atmosphere such sightings were becoming more frequent, Mr Ford said. What many people believe to be shooting stars are actually stray nuts and bolts burning up on re-entry, he said. Although up to 10 meteors were visible in an hour in a dark sky, spotting a piece of space junk as large as last night's sighting was still reasonably rare, he said. __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space Junk Lights Up Skies Over Australia
Space junk = old spacecraft. Old spacecraft with old fuel tanks full of vapor = boom! Depends on a lot of things, but that's at least a possible explanation. Cheers, MDF Hi Jeff I asume the explotions were from the object going from supersonic to subsonic. Best wishes Lars Pedersen - Original Message - From: Jeff Kuyken [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 10:56 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space Junk Lights Up Skies Over Australia G'day List, I read this story and the following line struck me as odd. calls reporting an extremely bright light and two explosions... I would not have thought that space junk would explode. Is this a correct assumption? Hopefully one of our knowledgeable list members can add something to this. Cheers, Jeff Kuyken I.M.C.A. #3085 www.meteorites.com.au --- Marc D. Fries, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Research Associate Carnegie Institution of Washington Geophysical Laboratory 5251 Broad Branch Rd. NW Washington, DC 20015 PH: 202 478 7970 FAX: 202 478 8901 __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Space Junk Lights Up Skies Over Australia
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/26/1093456733056.html?oneclick=true Space junk lights up skies The Age (Australia) August 26, 2004 It may have caused a stir on earth, but a bright light over south-western NSW last night was not a meteor, an astronomer said today. Police stations from Mount Druitt to Goulburn received dozens of phone calls reporting an extremely bright light and two explosions about 11.30pm (AEST) yesterday. Goulburn police sergeant Joe Fitzpatrick was on patrol in his police car when he saw an intense light in the sky to the north-west. It was a bluey-green colour ... certainly bright enough to attract the attention of all those around me, Sgt Fitzpatrick said. The moving light brightened for several seconds and then burned out, he said. When I first saw it I thought it was a firework or a flare. I'd compare it to the PolAir helicopter turning its light on, he said. The light was most likely caused by nothing more than space junk burning up, said astronomer Vince Ford, from Canberra's Mount Stromlo Observatory. Sounds like a bit of space junk, a piece of old rocket casing or a fuel cell, Mr Ford said. My best guess: a small bit of aluminium rocket casing, causing an extremely bright blue-green light as it burned (out). He said the metal was unlikely to have made a sound entering the atmosphere 30km above Earth. With tens of thousands of pieces of discarded shuttle materials congesting earth's atmosphere such sightings were becoming more frequent, Mr Ford said. What many people believe to be shooting stars are actually stray nuts and bolts burning up on re-entry, he said. Although up to 10 meteors were visible in an hour in a dark sky, spotting a piece of space junk as large as last night's sighting was still reasonably rare, he said. __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
