[meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[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 <paseclipse at yahoo.com> wrote:


> From: Del Waterbury <paseclipse at yahoo.com>

> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com, star_wars_collector at yahoo.com

> 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

> <star_wars_collector at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 

> > From: Greg Catterton

> <star_wars_collector at yahoo.com>

> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life

> - shame on NASA

> > To: meteorite-list at 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

> > <clp at alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

> > 

> > > From: Chris Peterson

> <clp at alumni.caltech.edu>

> > > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine

> life

> > - shame on NASA

> > > To: meteorite-list at 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"

> > > <star_wars_collector at yahoo.com>

> > > To: <meteorite-list at 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 at meteoritecentral.com

> > >

> >

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

> > 

> > 

> >       

> > 

> > ______________________________________________

> > http://www.meteoritecentral.com

> > Meteorite-list mailing list

> > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com

> >

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list