Re: [meteorite-list] ‘Space junk’ crashes into Florida home from International Space Station, NASA says

2024-04-17 Thread John Lutzon via Meteorite-list
   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

2024-04-17 Thread Michael Gilmer via Meteorite-list
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

2024-04-16 Thread Alfredo Petrov via Meteorite-list
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

2024-04-16 Thread Michael Murray via Meteorite-list
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

2024-04-16 Thread John Lutzon via Meteorite-list
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

2024-04-16 Thread John Lutzon via Meteorite-list
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

2024-04-16 Thread Ben Fisler via Meteorite-list
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

2024-04-16 Thread Michael Murray via Meteorite-list
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

2024-04-16 Thread Paul via Meteorite-list

‘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

2017-04-06 Thread Mark Hammergren via Meteorite-list
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

2017-04-06 Thread Korotev, Randy via Meteorite-list
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

2014-10-15 Thread Steinar Midtskogen via Meteorite-list
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

2011-09-24 Thread Paul H.
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?

2009-11-23 Thread E.P. Grondine
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

2008-11-03 Thread Greg Catterton
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

2008-11-03 Thread Pete Pete

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

2008-11-03 Thread Chris Peterson

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

2008-11-03 Thread Mike Bandli
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

2008-11-03 Thread Greg Catterton
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

2008-11-03 Thread Darren Garrison
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

2008-11-03 Thread Del Waterbury
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

2008-11-03 Thread Greg Catterton
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

2008-11-03 Thread Greg Catterton
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

2008-11-03 Thread Chris Peterson

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

2008-11-03 Thread Greg Catterton

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

2008-11-03 Thread Greg Hupe

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

2008-11-03 Thread Mr EMan
--- 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

2008-11-03 Thread Darren Garrison
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

2008-11-03 Thread Sterling K. Webb
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

2008-11-03 Thread Greg Hupe

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

2008-11-03 Thread Dr. Svend Buhl
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

2008-11-03 Thread Mike Bandli
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

2008-11-03 Thread Greg Catterton
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

2008-11-03 Thread Chris Peterson
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

2008-11-03 Thread Darren Garrison
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

2008-11-03 Thread John.L.Cabassi

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

2008-11-03 Thread mexicodoug

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

2008-11-03 Thread Chris Peterson

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

2008-11-03 Thread mckinney trammell
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

2008-11-03 Thread Greg Catterton
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

2008-11-03 Thread Michael Farmer
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

2008-11-03 Thread Darren Garrison
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

2008-11-03 Thread mexicodoug
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

2008-11-03 Thread Rob McCafferty
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

2007-03-29 Thread Kevin Forbes


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

2007-03-29 Thread Chris Peterson
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

2007-03-29 Thread dean bessey
--- 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

2007-03-29 Thread dean bessey
--- 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

2007-03-29 Thread richard rumble
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

2007-03-29 Thread Chris Peterson
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

2007-03-29 Thread Sterling K. Webb
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

2007-03-29 Thread AL Mitterling
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

2007-02-22 Thread Sterling K. Webb
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

2007-02-21 Thread Sterling K. Webb
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

2004-08-27 Thread Jeff Kuyken
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

2004-08-27 Thread Solvænget
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

2004-08-27 Thread Marc D. Fries
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

2004-08-26 Thread Ron Baalke


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