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
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> 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
