Space junk problem rising to new heights [EAS jettison, mid-

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Space - Station Forum » Space junk problem rising to new heights [EAS jettison, mid-

Page 5 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Author

Message

Derek Lyons

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:09 am

Guest

"George" <george@yourservice.com> wrote:

Quote:

"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:456737f7.589880812@news.supernews.com...
"George" <george@yourservice.com> wrote:

Do you always respond to posts with ad hominems? Bad form, Derek.

If you actually bother to read my posts - you'll find that's not true.

Oh, wait. Actually reading my posts would mean encountering pesky
facts - you don't like facts. In fact, you actively go out of your
way to pretend they don't exist.

D.

Wow, another ad hominem. You're batting 1000, Derek. Enjoy, already.

..1000 if one wants to be correct.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Derek Lyons

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:13 am

Guest

"George" <george@yourservice.com> wrote:

Quote:

"George" <george@yourservice.com> wrote:

Quote:

<repost with the decimal point in the right place.>

1.000 if one wants to be correct. (Oops, another of those pesky
facts.)

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

columbiaaccidentinvestiga

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:01 am

Guest

Jim Kingdon wrote:"Good article.Of course, an object this big is easy
to track by radar, so in that
sense it is an easier case than the golf ball. But I'm sure that
working out the first few orbits (before the radar would give accurate
orbital elements) is a bit tricky."

The ground based radar and other devices that are used to track many
orbital debris objects update the locations of these objects in keeping
accurate orbital decay models. But one of the causes for errors in
current orbital decay modeling occurs from the changing ion flux due to
the suns 11 year cycles of minimum and maximum activity. These
increases and decreases in solar activity change the atmospheric
density, or atmospheric drag objects in orbit encounter. The upcoming
jettison of the EAS from the space station in mid 2007 could provide an
opportunity to provide data of large object decay from orbital
altitudes the iss occupies, and build upon the data collected from
other objects, as the solar activity should pick around that time as we
approach the next solar maximum in 2011.

The new jettison policy for the International Space Station Nicholas L.
Johnson
*Orbital Debris Program Office,
"Detailed analysis of the relative ballistic coefficients and
trajectories of the object and of ISS must be undertaken to evaluate
potential close approaches during the period of up to 72 hours after
release. Since most objects are not spheres and might be tumbling,
their ballistic coefficients cannot be known with certainty prior to
release. Most objects will decay faster than ISS, and, hence, will
quickly fall below the altitude of the space station. In the event
that a released object still transits ISS altitudes after 2-3 days,
tracking data from the U.S. SSN would permit routine conjunction
assessments, a process now performed three times per day. In the highly
unlikely case that a close approach were predicted, ISS could perform a
collision avoidance maneuver."

Greg D. Moore (Strider)

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:07 am

Guest

"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4567cffe.628799468@news.supernews.com...

Quote:

"George" <george@yourservice.com> wrote:

"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:456737f7.589880812@news.supernews.com...
"George" <george@yourservice.com> wrote:

Do you always respond to posts with ad hominems? Bad form, Derek.

If you actually bother to read my posts - you'll find that's not true.

Oh, wait. Actually reading my posts would mean encountering pesky
facts - you don't like facts. In fact, you actively go out of your
way to pretend they don't exist.

D.

Wow, another ad hominem. You're batting 1000, Derek. Enjoy, already.

.1000 if one wants to be correct.

Actually 1.000 if one really wants to be correct.

Since a batter hitting .100 would be normally called a "pitcher" in the
National League.

Quote:

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Greg D. Moore (Strider)

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:07 am

Guest

"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4568d0c3.628996859@news.supernews.com...

Quote:

"George" <george@yourservice.com> wrote:

repost with the decimal point in the right place.

1.000 if one wants to be correct. (Oops, another of those pesky
facts.)

Ah, ok. you did catch it. :-)

Quote:

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

John Doe

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:41 pm

Guest

columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:

Quote:

release: (1) items that pose a safety issue for return on-board a
visiting vehicle,

I other words, someone can decide that although it was safe enough to
launch that item on the shuttle, they can decide that it is unsafe to
return it on the same vehicle, even though returning from space is far less
dangerous/stressing on the cargo sunce G forces and vibration are far lower.

Secondly, in that text, there is very little in the way of the earth's
environment.

While one can argue that very little falls to the ground, this means that
the mass that is being jettisoned will pollute the atmosphere. Surely
having tons of burned aluminium and ammonia and other nasty stuff end up
staying in the upper layers of the atmosphere cannot be good ?

And I saw no mention of radioactive items either in that statement. While
the station may currently have radioactive stuff only in its smoke
detectors, what about in the future ?

Jorge R. Frank

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:14 pm

Guest

John Doe <jdoe@doe.org> wrote in
news:97a4e$45687238$cef8887a$25970@TEKSAVVY.COM:

Quote:

columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
release: (1) items that pose a safety issue for return on-board a
visiting vehicle,

I other words, someone can decide that although it was safe enough to
launch that item on the shuttle, they can decide that it is unsafe to
return it on the same vehicle, even though returning from space is far
less
dangerous/stressing on the cargo sunce G forces and vibration are
far lower.

And that would be a perfectly sound decision, if the item was carried up on
an ICC but there's no room to add an ICC to bring it back.

Quote:

Secondly, in that text, there is very little in the way of the earth's
environment.

While one can argue that very little falls to the ground, this means
that the mass that is being jettisoned will pollute the atmosphere.
Surely having tons of burned aluminium and ammonia and other nasty
stuff end up staying in the upper layers of the atmosphere cannot be
good ?

You're exaggerating. The tank and its ammonia together are only 680 kg, not
"tons". EAS is pretty small, in the context of things that have been
deorbited before.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Derek Lyons

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:18 pm

Guest

"Greg D. Moore $Strider$" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote:

Quote:

"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4568d0c3.628996859@news.supernews.com...
"George" <george@yourservice.com> wrote:

repost with the decimal point in the right place.

1.000 if one wants to be correct. (Oops, another of those pesky
facts.)

Ah, ok. you did catch it. Smile

Lordy, I am a Mariners fan, but that doesn't mean I'm totally ignorant
of baseball! :)

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

columbiaaccidentinvestiga

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:13 pm

Guest

John Doe wrote:"I other words, someone can decide that although it was
safe enough to launch that item on the shuttle, they can decide that
it is unsafe to return it on the same vehicle, even though returning
from space is far less dangerous/stressing on the cargo sunce G forces
and vibration are far lower. Secondly, in that text, there is very
little in the way of the earth's environment. While one can argue that
very little falls to the ground, this means that the mass that is being
jettisoned will pollute the atmosphere. Surely having tons of burned
aluminium and ammonia and other nasty stuff end up staying in the upper
layers of the atmosphere cannot be good ? And I saw no mention of
radioactive items either in that statement. While the station may
currently have radioactive stuff only in its smoke detectors, what
about in the future ?"

What I cited was the new object jettison policy, with respect to the
EAS mid 2007 jettison from the iss. Protecting manned space craft from
orbital debris collisions is a chief concern for mission safety, and
therefore if safely jettisoned from the space station the orbital decay
of a known object such as the eas, from the known orbit of the iss, can
yield many scientific benefits such as refining orbital decay models of
large objects in low altitude orbits. And given the fact the errors in
current orbital decay modeling occurs from the changing ion flux due to
the suns 11 year cycles of minimum and maximum activity, the upcoming
jettison of the EAS from the space station could provide an opportunity
to refine these orbital decay models as the solar activity should pick
up in the next year or so as we approach the next solar maximum in
2011. Dealing with the issue of protecting the environment always has
political, social, and economic balances, and yes managing our
resources and protecting our environment does include the atmosphere,
as well objects in orbit. Now for future solutions to orbital debris,
should implement the least environmental impact, while still retaining
safety for the manned space crews as the chief concern, which is
another reason to refine the current orbital decay models as to help
with understanding all of the impacts of the various solutions to
orbital debris issues.
Now, advancing a society and minimizing the negative environmental
impact of space travel do not need to be in opposition, as many of the
earth observing satellites that have contributed to the worlds
knowledge of our environment, became space debris at the end of the
missions lifetime ie the upper atmosphere research satellite or (UARS),
that was maneuvered below the iss in late 2005 for atmospheric reentry,
after more than a decade of massive data gathering.

tom

Jeff Findley

Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:39 pm

Guest

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote in message
news:%Og9h.3103$1s6.101@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Quote:

Changes can't be made without consequences. In this specific case, the
engineers, NOT the astronauts, sorry, they're there for the ride, make the
options available and management decides upon them. There's no such thing
as a free lunch.

Life sucks when your manager thinks that requirements changes are free.

http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/steverumsby/2004/09/06/dilbert2004090116225.jpg

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

The Rocket Scientist

Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:11 pm

Guest

Jim Oberg wrote:

Quote:

Space junk problem rising to new heights [EAS jettison, mid-2007]

Disposal of piano-sized space station piece poses challenges

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15817106/

Kid, we found your name on an envelope underneath a half a' ton of
garbage in Low Earth Orbit and we wondered if you had any information
about it.

Bill Sullivan

Al G

Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:12 pm

Guest

"The Rocket Scientist" <bill.the.rocket.scientist@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:1164730274.516567.242850@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Quote:

Jim Oberg wrote:
Space junk problem rising to new heights [EAS jettison, mid-2007]

Disposal of piano-sized space station piece poses challenges

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15817106/

Kid, we found your name on an envelope underneath a half a' ton of
garbage in Low Earth Orbit and we wondered if you had any information
about it.

Bill Sullivan

And we figured that one big pile was better than two little ones, and

rather than bring that one up, we threw ours down...

Al G

columbiaaccidentinvestiga

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 1:51 pm

Guest

Al G wrote:

Quote:

"The Rocket Scientist" <bill.the.rocket.scientist@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:1164730274.516567.242850@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jim Oberg wrote:
Space junk problem rising to new heights [EAS jettison, mid-2007]

Disposal of piano-sized space station piece poses challenges

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15817106/

Kid, we found your name on an envelope underneath a half a' ton of
garbage in Low Earth Orbit and we wondered if you had any information
about it.

Bill Sullivan

And we figured that one big pile was better than two little ones, and
rather than bring that one up, we threw ours down...

Al G

Nasa is attempting to limit the generation of orbital debris by setting
new policies and through actions such as planning for the EAS to
reenter the atmosphere. I have stated above the Protecting manned
space craft from orbital debris collisions is a chief concern for
mission safety, and therefore if safely jettisoned from the space
station the orbital decay of a known object such as the eas, from the
known orbit of the iss, can yield many scientific benefits such as
refining orbital decay models of large objects in low altitude orbits.
And given the fact the errors in current orbital decay modeling occurs
from the changing ion flux due to the suns 11 year cycles of minimum
and maximum activity, the upcoming jettison of the EAS from the space
station could provide an opportunity to refine these orbital decay
models as the solar activity should pick up in the next year or so as
we approach the next solar maximum in 2011. The following link is a
nasa policy change attempting to decrease the generation of new
orbital debris.

http://sn-callisto.jsc.nasa.gov/library/NPD_8710_3B.pdf
"1. POLICY
It is NASA policy to limit the generation of orbital debris (OD),
consistent with mission requirements and cost effectiveness
(Requirement 6025)."

tom

lab~rat >:-)

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:41 pm

Guest

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 13:48:32 -0500, John Doe <jdoe@doe.org> puked:

Quote:

I think that this is an exercise in proving that the shuttle isn't needed,
to demonstrate that they can jettison large bulky items. Just imagine what
happens the day one such item doesn't totally disintegrate and falls into
someone's farm/backyard.

Like Columbia...
--
lab~rat > Smile

Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 4:47 am

Jim Oberg wrote:

Quote:

That's roughly the size and weight of the piece of equipment NASA plans
to throw over the space station's side next spring - if they can figure out
which way it'll go once it's cast away.

Since density is the problem, why not attach and inflate a largeish
balloon?
It's light. It's simple. The pressure inside the balloon's envelope
would be
miniscule. It would only have to last a few days before the object was
safely
below the station. I would think a couple 4-5m balloons would do the
trick.

-JohnG

Page 5 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Sun Oct 12, 2008 10:46 am Science Forum Index