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

[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, mexicodoug at aim.com <mexicodoug at aim.com> wrote:


> From: mexicodoug at aim.com <mexicodoug at aim.com>

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

> To: Meteorite-list at 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 <clp at alumni.caltech.edu>

> To: meteorite-list at 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" 

> <star_wars_collector at yahoo.com> 

> To: "Chris Peterson"

> <clp at alumni.caltech.edu> 

> Cc: <meteorite-list at 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 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