[meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
I wouldn't mind if it landed on my property - right onto Ebay! Cheers, Pete Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:41:27 -0800 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list _ __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Hi Greg- It is inaccurate to say that this object splashed down. In fact, much of it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is likely to be near zero. Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Actually, fish and marine life have a better chance of dying from getting hit on the head with stainless steel debris than the ammonia coolant. The coolant was vaporized during re-entry. Besides, I rather toss the tank into decay (with the flick of a finger!) than spend 10 million bringing it back via the space shuttle. Mike Bandli -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Catterton Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 10:41 AM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on land becouse of toxic hazards? I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the same time, I dont think that is right to do also. Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported has mislead me to think that it was more of a big deal then it is, but it is troubling to think that this was the best thing they could come up with. Surely it could have been returned to earth on a shuttle and disposed of properly. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:57 PM Hi Greg- It is inaccurate to say that this object splashed down. In fact, much of it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is likely to be near zero. Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:41:27 -0800 (PST), you wrote: Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! Yep, ammonia isn't good for fish. Which is why they are constantly dumping it out of their bodies-- into the water. If some of the ammonia happened to make it to the surface of the ocean, for a few minutes a small area would have a slightly higher concentration, which would quickly diffuse into the general fish-pee background. (Hint-- the ocean is kind of a big place). __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
I don't think the taxpayers would be to happy to hear NASA spent millions of dollars to remove a piece of space junk. Letting it enter back into the atmoshphere is the safe and cheapest way to go. Of course we could just let it stay up there and add to the many pieces of space junk already floating around putting astronauts lives in danger. Del --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 11:06 AM If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on land becouse of toxic hazards? I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the same time, I dont think that is right to do also. Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported has mislead me to think that it was more of a big deal then it is, but it is troubling to think that this was the best thing they could come up with. Surely it could have been returned to earth on a shuttle and disposed of properly. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:57 PM Hi Greg- It is inaccurate to say that this object splashed down. In fact, much of it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is likely to be near zero. Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
take your pick: http://news.aol.com/article/space-station-trash-plunging-to-earth/234755?icid=200100397x1212231854x1200798183 http://www.space.com/aol/081031-space-station-debris-reentry.html http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/07/19/spacejunk_spa.html just a few links about it. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:10 PM Hello Greg, Where do you read that an astronaut, ..threw it (ammonia tank) overboard (from the International Space Station) during a space walk in July 2007.? I find it highly unlikely that material would be purposely tossed into space to potentially be a floating target for future spacecraft and/or satellites to hit. I do not think NASA has the same mindset that some cruise ship operators have by throwing their bags of trash into the ocean. My thoughts! Greg Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection NaturesVault (eBay) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.LunarRock.com IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 1:41 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
why could they not have returned it to earth on a shuttle that was going to be returning to earth anyway? No extra cost involved there. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:14 PM I don't think the taxpayers would be to happy to hear NASA spent millions of dollars to remove a piece of space junk. Letting it enter back into the atmoshphere is the safe and cheapest way to go. Of course we could just let it stay up there and add to the many pieces of space junk already floating around putting astronauts lives in danger. Del --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 11:06 AM If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on land becouse of toxic hazards? I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the same time, I dont think that is right to do also. Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported has mislead me to think that it was more of a big deal then it is, but it is troubling to think that this was the best thing they could come up with. Surely it could have been returned to earth on a shuttle and disposed of properly. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:57 PM Hi Greg- It is inaccurate to say that this object splashed down. In fact, much of it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is likely to be near zero. Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Hi Greg- This thing was, in fact, deliberately discarded with the knowledge that it would reenter. It posed no risk to anything else because it was large enough to track, in a known orbit, and was sure to have a short lifetime in space. It had no potential to produce any additional debris. This isn't the first thing they scuttled from the ISS. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA Hello Greg, Where do you read that an astronaut, ..threw it (ammonia tank) overboard (from the International Space Station) during a space walk in July 2007.? I find it highly unlikely that material would be purposely tossed into space to potentially be a floating target for future spacecraft and/or satellites to hit. I do not think NASA has the same mindset that some cruise ship operators have by throwing their bags of trash into the ocean. My thoughts! Greg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
It is the first thing I was aware of, until reading more about it. I know what ifs are really meaningless, however... if it had landed on a school full of kids, Im sure the cost of returning to earth would have been very cheap compared to the loss of life. If it had impacted on a house or other private property, would NASA have been liable? The replies about this have been really good and informative, Thanks to all for your input. Greg --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:23 PM Hi Greg- This thing was, in fact, deliberately discarded with the knowledge that it would reenter. It posed no risk to anything else because it was large enough to track, in a known orbit, and was sure to have a short lifetime in space. It had no potential to produce any additional debris. This isn't the first thing they scuttled from the ISS. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA Hello Greg, Where do you read that an astronaut, ..threw it (ammonia tank) overboard (from the International Space Station) during a space walk in July 2007.? I find it highly unlikely that material would be purposely tossed into space to potentially be a floating target for future spacecraft and/or satellites to hit. I do not think NASA has the same mindset that some cruise ship operators have by throwing their bags of trash into the ocean. My thoughts! Greg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Hello Greg, Where do you read that an astronaut, ..threw it (ammonia tank) overboard (from the International Space Station) during a space walk in July 2007.? I find it highly unlikely that material would be purposely tossed into space to potentially be a floating target for future spacecraft and/or satellites to hit. I do not think NASA has the same mindset that some cruise ship operators have by throwing their bags of trash into the ocean. My thoughts! Greg Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection NaturesVault (eBay) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.LunarRock.com IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 1:41 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters?...snip Yeppers!!!---I'd sure hope you are the only one...(((rolling eyes))). I think this post should be nominated for the Emily Lutella Award. No, seriously-- that was pretty funny no matter how you intended it. It was good satire on GW, green-flavored victimism. Statistically, any remaining ammonia was 99.999% consumed in reentry: it has a very low boiling point--and there is no evidence anything including ammonia made it into the ocean. So it was really closer to air polution but you didn't make a case for that. The insight argued is too porous to hold a whif of ammonia. Sooo-- so far off reality they are fruitless to address in their entirety but using your own reasoning --I do know that the ammonia in your urine is a pollutant. If you are so morally outraged, I suggest you take any future pisses on your leg rather than allowing it into the water system to avoid future criminal acts yourself... drink it, bottle it, whatever-- just don't piss in my water nor on me again. Oh and under the new Administration your breath is a pollutant as well so try to hold it. Charter member of the Strained Gnat and Drank Camel Watcher Society Elton __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:06:38 -0800 (PST), you wrote: If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on land becouse of toxic hazards? 1. The hazards imagined for land debris are things like nitrogen tetraoxide and other potentially toxic propellants. 2. Toxicity is about concentration. Drink a cup of ammonia, and you are likely to have a bad (but possibly short) day. Dump a cup of ammonia in a swimming pool, and you'll be quite safe jumping in. (Heck, if you are in a public pool, a few cups of ammonia have most likely already been dumped in). __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Hi, Greg, Chris, All, Ecological impact is likely a true zero. We don't even know if ANY piece of the tank made it to ground or not. Odds are against. But I want to quibble with this: ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. The world is not a gigantic video game of utter destruction. The current lost rate is five per thousand ships. That amounts to about 300 ships a year. And the term lost includes all causes of being removed from service. Most lost ships are lost near coasts, on reefs, in collisions with other ships. They are damaged beyond the worth of saving and are scraped when they're lifted off and tugboated to a port. The classic lost at sea, where a ship sets out and vanishes, is unbelievably rare! Footnote data: http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D5673/8133.pdf Avast, matey! Sterling K. Webb --- - Original Message - From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:57 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA Hi Greg- It is inaccurate to say that this object splashed down. In fact, much of it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is likely to be near zero. Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Hi Chris, Thank you for replying in a short and easy way to describe the objects size being trackable. I won't begin to pretend to know about these things. The initial comment seemed like as hip-shot and I didn't think NASA or the astronaut deserved it. Best regards, Greg Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection NaturesVault (eBay) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.LunarRock.com IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault - Original Message - From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA Hi Greg- This thing was, in fact, deliberately discarded with the knowledge that it would reenter. It posed no risk to anything else because it was large enough to track, in a known orbit, and was sure to have a short lifetime in space. It had no potential to produce any additional debris. This isn't the first thing they scuttled from the ISS. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA Hello Greg, Where do you read that an astronaut, ..threw it (ammonia tank) overboard (from the International Space Station) during a space walk in July 2007.? I find it highly unlikely that material would be purposely tossed into space to potentially be a floating target for future spacecraft and/or satellites to hit. I do not think NASA has the same mindset that some cruise ship operators have by throwing their bags of trash into the ocean. My thoughts! Greg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Greg, my full respect for your cares about the environment. But I doubt that any ammonia reached the lower atmosphere. Besides, if there is one gouvernment outfit that has had a major positive impact on environmental protection in the past then its NASA. Svend www.meteorite-recon.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 7:41 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
This would require a new mission plan and millions of dollars in training exercises and mock-ups. The tank weighs 1400 lbs and it would have to be brought in the payload bay. A system would have to be designed and installed to hold the tank. I forget the figure, but there is a cost per pound in space flight and it is not cheap. When those payload bay doors open it costs $!! Bottom line: it's not feasible. Burn baby burn. Mike Bandli -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Catterton Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:22 AM To: Del Waterbury Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA why could they not have returned it to earth on a shuttle that was going to be returning to earth anyway? No extra cost involved there. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:14 PM I don't think the taxpayers would be to happy to hear NASA spent millions of dollars to remove a piece of space junk. Letting it enter back into the atmoshphere is the safe and cheapest way to go. Of course we could just let it stay up there and add to the many pieces of space junk already floating around putting astronauts lives in danger. Del --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 11:06 AM If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on land becouse of toxic hazards? I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the same time, I dont think that is right to do also. Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported has mislead me to think that it was more of a big deal then it is, but it is troubling to think that this was the best thing they could come up with. Surely it could have been returned to earth on a shuttle and disposed of properly. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:57 PM Hi Greg- It is inaccurate to say that this object splashed down. In fact, much of it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is likely to be near zero. Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
no hip shot was intended. I was basing my opinions on reports I have read concerning this and as I have said before, I am not as experienced at these things as some of you are and the reports I read made it out to be a major health risk to people if it was a land impact. that said, I figured the health risk to marine life would have been the same. I am not out to blast NASA or the atronaut, I just did not understand why they could not have simply returned it in a shuttle that was returning to earth. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:35 PM Hi Chris, Thank you for replying in a short and easy way to describe the objects size being trackable. I won't begin to pretend to know about these things. The initial comment seemed like as hip-shot and I didn't think NASA or the astronaut deserved it. Best regards, Greg Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection NaturesVault (eBay) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.LunarRock.com IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault - Original Message - From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA Hi Greg- This thing was, in fact, deliberately discarded with the knowledge that it would reenter. It posed no risk to anything else because it was large enough to track, in a known orbit, and was sure to have a short lifetime in space. It had no potential to produce any additional debris. This isn't the first thing they scuttled from the ISS. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA Hello Greg, Where do you read that an astronaut, ..threw it (ammonia tank) overboard (from the International Space Station) during a space walk in July 2007.? I find it highly unlikely that material would be purposely tossed into space to potentially be a floating target for future spacecraft and/or satellites to hit. I do not think NASA has the same mindset that some cruise ship operators have by throwing their bags of trash into the ocean. My thoughts! Greg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
There is established international law dealing with legal liability for damage or injury caused by space debris reaching the ground. All space missions (in the U.S., at least) consider the likelihood of material surviving reentry. It's a question of statistics, and the chance of damage is almost always extremely small. In rare cases where something very large is being returned, it is usual for the object to be scuttled under controlled circumstances, to ensure reentry over the ocean. This refrigeration unit did not require a semi-controlled reentry because it was very unlikely enough material would survive to the ground to matter, regardless of where the decay occurred. Of course, if an object should land on a school, it's easy to say how much cheaper it would have been to return it. But that logic only applies if you return everything, and that would be far, far more expensive than the cost of a single object hitting a school. In this case, given the size of debris remaining (if any), it's likely that something hitting a roof would just knock off some shingles and slide down. I'll bet your risk is much greater from being hit by something falling off an airplane than being hit by something reentering from space. And neither risk is high enough to spend much time worrying about! Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA It is the first thing I was aware of, until reading more about it. I know what ifs are really meaningless, however... if it had landed on a school full of kids, Im sure the cost of returning to earth would have been very cheap compared to the loss of life. If it had impacted on a house or other private property, would NASA have been liable? The replies about this have been really good and informative, Thanks to all for your input. Greg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:34:51 -0600, you wrote: The world is not a gigantic video game of utter destruction. The current lost rate is five per thousand ships. That amounts to about 300 ships a year. And the term lost includes all causes of being removed from service. On the other hand, there are literally thousands of cargo containers lost as sea every year-- and some of them probably contain stuff not overly fish-friendly. http://www.google.com/search?num=100hl=ensafe=offq=cargo+containers+lost+at+seabtnG=Search __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
G'Day Greg and all I thought I read that the tank was not stable enough to stand a trip back in the shuttle and could pose a risk to the shuttle and crew. Cheers Johnno - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA why could they not have returned it to earth on a shuttle that was going to be returning to earth anyway? No extra cost involved there. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:14 PM I don't think the taxpayers would be to happy to hear NASA spent millions of dollars to remove a piece of space junk. Letting it enter back into the atmoshphere is the safe and cheapest way to go. Of course we could just let it stay up there and add to the many pieces of space junk already floating around putting astronauts lives in danger. Del --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 11:06 AM If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on land becouse of toxic hazards? I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the same time, I dont think that is right to do also. Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported has mislead me to think that it was more of a big deal then it is, but it is troubling to think that this was the best thing they could come up with. Surely it could have been returned to earth on a shuttle and disposed of properly. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:57 PM Hi Greg- It is inaccurate to say that this object splashed down. In fact, much of it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is likely to be near zero. Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Hi Chris, Listees, It isn't a shade of illegal dumping at issue as far as I can tell. The possibly crass accusations that stated this thread might consider that transporting the old tank in a Space Shuttle back to earth would present a far greater danger to occupants and American residents in the landing path across the USA upon reentry rather than uncontrolled incineration it was given. If you don't believe that, why don't you volunteer for a return flight with that oversized ammonia tank strapped in next to you in the belly of the Shuttle as the 30 year old vehicle starts shaking like hell in a controlled fall your life depends upon in reentry. Even Iron Man might get a cold sweat on that one. There was no safer way, unless you wanted to build a booster for it and blast it off from a mobile launch platform in low earth orbit into the Sun :). Is this a sensible? Best wishes and great health, Doug -Original Message- From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 1:52 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA There is established international law dealing with legal liability for damage or injury caused by space debris reaching the ground. All space missions (in the U.S., at least) consider the likelihood of material surviving reentry. It's a question of statistics, and the chance of damage is almost always extremely small. In rare cases where something very large is being returned, it is usual for the object to be scuttled under controlled circumstances, to ensure reentry over the ocean. This refrigeration unit did not require a semi-controlled reentry because it was very unlikely enough material would survive to the ground to matter, regardless of where the decay occurred. Of course, if an object should land on a school, it's easy to say how much cheaper it would have been to return it. But that logic only applies if you return everything, and that would be far, far more expensive than the cost of a single object hitting a school. In this case, given the size of debris remaining (if any), it's likely that something hitting a roof would just knock off some shingles and slide down. I'll bet your risk is much greater from being hit by something falling off an airplane than being hit by something reentering from space. And neither risk is high enough to spend much time worrying about! Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA It is the first thing I was aware of, until reading more about it. I know what ifs are really meaningless, however... if it had landed on a school full of kids, Im sure the cost of returning to earth would have been very cheap compared to the loss of life. If it had impacted on a house or other private property, would NASA have been liable? The replies about this have been really good and informative, Thanks to all for your input. Greg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
The possibly crass accusations that stated this thread... I take it as a simple misunderstanding, perhaps a reasonable one given the way things like this are covered in the popular press. The replies were reasonable and friendly, as was Greg's response. Nice to see... civility is sometimes in short supply around here. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 2:11 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA Hi Chris, Listees, It isn't a shade of illegal dumping at issue as far as I can tell. The possibly crass accusations that stated this thread might consider that transporting the old tank in a Space Shuttle back to earth would present a far greater danger to occupants and American residents in the landing path across the USA upon reentry rather than uncontrolled incineration it was given. If you don't believe that, why don't you volunteer for a return flight with that oversized ammonia tank strapped in next to you in the belly of the Shuttle as the 30 year old vehicle starts shaking like hell in a controlled fall your life depends upon in reentry. Even Iron Man might get a cold sweat on that one. There was no safer way, unless you wanted to build a booster for it and blast it off from a mobile launch platform in low earth orbit into the Sun :). Is this a sensible? Best wishes and great health, Doug __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
so long as it does not leave a sheen, the coast guard, won't care. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Darren Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Darren Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 3:02 PM On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:34:51 -0600, you wrote: The world is not a gigantic video game of utter destruction. The current lost rate is five per thousand ships. That amounts to about 300 ships a year. And the term lost includes all causes of being removed from service. On the other hand, there are literally thousands of cargo containers lost as sea every year-- and some of them probably contain stuff not overly fish-friendly. http://www.google.com/search?num=100hl=ensafe=offq=cargo+containers+lost+at+seabtnG=Search __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
I will state again, from the reports I read, it was supposed to pose a serious health risk to anyone who would have come into contact with it had there been a land impact... that said, I assumed that the same would be for marine life. I felt that if that was the case, it was very reckless of NASA to simply toss it out to fall to earth. Again, I am new to this and do not understand all the things involved. All reports I read stated that several pieces would survive re entry and some would be up to 40-50 lbs... I may not have fully understood the issue, but I do feel some comments directed to me were very insulting. I have stated before I am newer to this and do not understand everything involved. while several of you have been polite and helpful, I am left feeling that certain ones who responded need to be more considerate of people who are new to this and still learning. Its not as if I publicly insulted anyone here and for some of the comments I have recieved I feel are totally uncalled for. I do understand the safety issues involved with returning it to earth, and the costs... none of which was explained in the news reports... that is why I felt NASA was reckless and should be held liable - I was not properly informed and took the reports at face value. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 4:11 PM Hi Chris, Listees, It isn't a shade of illegal dumping at issue as far as I can tell. The possibly crass accusations that stated this thread might consider that transporting the old tank in a Space Shuttle back to earth would present a far greater danger to occupants and American residents in the landing path across the USA upon reentry rather than uncontrolled incineration it was given. If you don't believe that, why don't you volunteer for a return flight with that oversized ammonia tank strapped in next to you in the belly of the Shuttle as the 30 year old vehicle starts shaking like hell in a controlled fall your life depends upon in reentry. Even Iron Man might get a cold sweat on that one. There was no safer way, unless you wanted to build a booster for it and blast it off from a mobile launch platform in low earth orbit into the Sun :). Is this a sensible? Best wishes and great health, Doug -Original Message- From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 1:52 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA There is established international law dealing with legal liability for damage or injury caused by space debris reaching the ground. All space missions (in the U.S., at least) consider the likelihood of material surviving reentry. It's a question of statistics, and the chance of damage is almost always extremely small. In rare cases where something very large is being returned, it is usual for the object to be scuttled under controlled circumstances, to ensure reentry over the ocean. This refrigeration unit did not require a semi-controlled reentry because it was very unlikely enough material would survive to the ground to matter, regardless of where the decay occurred. Of course, if an object should land on a school, it's easy to say how much cheaper it would have been to return it. But that logic only applies if you return everything, and that would be far, far more expensive than the cost of a single object hitting a school. In this case, given the size of debris remaining (if any), it's likely that something hitting a roof would just knock off some shingles and slide down. I'll bet your risk is much greater from being hit by something falling off an airplane than being hit by something reentering from space. And neither risk is high enough to spend much time worrying about! Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA It is the first thing I was aware of, until reading more about it. I know what ifs are really meaningless, however... if it had landed on a school full of kids, Im sure the cost of returning to earth would have been very cheap compared to the loss of life. If it had impacted on a house or other private property, would NASA have been liable? The replies about this have been really good and informative, Thanks to all for your input. Greg
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Can we take this to a NASA or SPACE JUNK list. This has nothing to do with meteorites, though interesting, has run its coarse and filled my inbox. Michael Farmer --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 12:21 PM why could they not have returned it to earth on a shuttle that was going to be returning to earth anyway? No extra cost involved there. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:14 PM I don't think the taxpayers would be to happy to hear NASA spent millions of dollars to remove a piece of space junk. Letting it enter back into the atmoshphere is the safe and cheapest way to go. Of course we could just let it stay up there and add to the many pieces of space junk already floating around putting astronauts lives in danger. Del --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 11:06 AM If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on land becouse of toxic hazards? I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the same time, I dont think that is right to do also. Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported has mislead me to think that it was more of a big deal then it is, but it is troubling to think that this was the best thing they could come up with. Surely it could have been returned to earth on a shuttle and disposed of properly. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:57 PM Hi Greg- It is inaccurate to say that this object splashed down. In fact, much of it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is likely to be near zero. Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:28:08 -0800 (PST), you wrote: I may not have fully understood the issue, but I do feel some comments directed to me were very insulting. Oh, they're just in the tank for ammonia. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
No problem Greg C. Ironically, I just posted based on the posts (press!) your reply got on the list, and of course qualified it by calling it possible so as to report rather than inject my opinion. Had not yet seen your recent clarification in the flurry of responses. NASA has done some shameful things, but if one points one specific out in a judgemental way, we should be careful to be specific and check our own sources and have a defensible argument. Thankfully this was not one of NASA's blunders. In addition, if it is ISS related, NASA is not alone, but rather part of an international team of accomplices and taxpayers ;) After being on the list longer, it seems friendly advice not to shame anyone, including NASA, unless you're enjoying a heated exchange, the list never fails, in which case it is nice to have reasonable facts to back up claims, rather than just tough talk (not referring to you at all with this). And the longer you are here the harder it will be for anyone to peel off your own heat-shield tiles :) Another ironic thing about the list, is ocassionally we lose new members who attempt to start their own forum after they participate in the heated exchanges and decide they can do a better job elsewhere on the www. They then point to heated exchanges on the list and try to draw list members by saying they moderate on their sites and the list is a mess. Some dealers think this draws business away from them, others are frustrated with all the places they must go for information. I truly hope you enjoy this list and contribute for our benefit, and do not feel that way. This list is kinda fun in that respect, it is peer reviewed by the best of the best - and that is the best it gets for amateurs. Welcome to the list, and please be sure to encourage all the meteorite people you know to use this great resource as a first stop for their meteorite interests. Best wishes Doug -Original Message- From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 3:28 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA I will state again, from the reports I read, it was supposed to pose a serious health risk to anyone who would have come into contact with it had there been a land impact... that said, I assumed that the same would be for marine life. I felt that if that was the case, it was very reckless of NASA to simply toss it out to fall to earth. Again, I am new to this and do not understand all the things involved. All reports I read stated that several pieces would survive re entry and some would be up to 40-50 lbs... I may not have fully understood the issue, but I do feel some comments directed to me were very insulting. I have stated before I am newer to this and do not understand everything involved. while several of you have been polite and helpful, I am left feeling that certain ones who responded need to be more considerate of people who are new to this and still learning. Its not as if I publicly insulted anyone here and for some of the comments I have recieved I feel are totally uncalled for. I do understand the safety issues involved with returning it to earth, and the costs... none of which was explained in the news reports... that is why I felt NASA was reckless and should be held liable - I was not properly informed and took the reports at face value. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 4:11 PM Hi Chris, Listees, It isn't a shade of illegal dumping at issue as far as I can tell. The possibly crass accusations that stated this thread might consider that transporting the old tank in a Space Shuttle back to earth would present a far greater danger to occupants and American residents in the landing path across the USA upon reentry rather than uncontrolled incineration it was given. If you don't believe that, why don't you volunteer for a return flight with that oversized ammonia tank strapped in next to you in the belly of the Shuttle as the 30 year old vehicle starts shaking like hell in a controlled fall your life depends upon in reentry. Even Iron Man might get a cold sweat on that one. There was no safer way, unless you wanted to build a booster for it and blast it off from a mobile launch platform in low earth orbit into the Sun :). Is this a sensible? Best wishes and great health, Doug -Original Message- From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 1:52 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA There is established international law dealing with legal liability for damage or injury caused by space debris reaching the ground. All space
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
I think it's worth pointing out that this object would not pose a collision risk to anything in space. It would orbit in the vicinity of the ISS while it's altitude slowly decayed. Remember of course that the ISS needs its orbit boosing periodically to prevent it from suffering the same fate. There was no environmental impact from Skylab, Mir or, tragically, Columbia so I don't think a small module is likely to cause too many problems. NASA are an easy target but I think they do a great job considering the political constraints they have to work under. (I suppose I would say that. As a UK citizen, I'm not footing the bill) Rob McCafferty --- On Tue, 11/4/08, Darren Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Darren Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 7:06 AM On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:41:27 -0800 (PST), you wrote: Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! Yep, ammonia isn't good for fish. Which is why they are constantly dumping it out of their bodies-- into the water. If some of the ammonia happened to make it to the surface of the ocean, for a few minutes a small area would have a slightly higher concentration, which would quickly diffuse into the general fish-pee background. (Hint-- the ocean is kind of a big place). __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
