Space Litter To Hit Earth Tomorrow 443
A refrigerator-sized tank of toxic ammonia, tossed from the international space station last year, is expected to hit earth tomorrow afternoon or evening. The 1,400-pound object was deliberately jettisoned — by hand — from the ISS's robot arm in July 2007. Since the time of re-entry is uncertain, so is the location. "NASA expects up to 15 pieces of the tank to survive the searing hot temperatures of re-entry, ranging in size from about 1.4 ounces (40 grams) to nearly 40 pounds (17.5 kilograms). ... [T]he largest pieces could slam into the Earth's surface at about 100 mph (161 kph). ...'If anybody found a piece of anything on the ground Monday morning, I would hope they wouldn't get too close to it,' [a NASA spokesman] said."
Cloudy (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Basically the NASA equivalent of driving down the highway, peeing in a can and throwing it out the window...
Re:Cloudy (Score:5, Funny)
Space trash wins. Next question.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The ammonia could probably be waste from reclamation of water from urine.
Re:Cloudy (Score:5, Funny)
So NASA is raining down piss waste on us all.
Yep, sounds like the government at work all right.
Re:Cloudy (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Cloudy (Score:5, Informative)
"The Early Ammonia Servicer (EAS) is a very large, 1400 pound tank of ammonia that was used to cool electronics on the International Space Station (ISS). When a permanent cooling system was installed, the EAS was thrown overboard by spacewalking astronaut Clayton Anderson on July 23, 2007. NASA does not normally dispose of debris by throwing it overboard. The risk of collision with the International Space Station or another satellite does not justify the ease of disposing of debris this way. In the case of the Early Ammonia Servicer, it was too heavy and dangerous (because of the ammonia) to return to Earth in the Space Shuttle, and throwing it overboard was the only option. The EAS has been in a slowly decaying orbit since then." - blatantly copied from an email I received earlier today on this subject.
Re:Cloudy (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, throwing it backwards would be the worst. We're talking about orbits here, so it will do a loop around the planet and smack you in the face.
You would want to push something off to a different altitude, so that your orbits do not cross at all. In this particular case, they would have pushed it down toward Earth.
I'm more than a little concerned about what happens if this debris falls ON something, you know, like one of the 6 billion humans that inhabit this wretched mound of dirt. I'm secretly wi
Re:Cloudy (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Cloudy (Score:4, Informative)
The answer to this has to do more with what the rest of the ISS is doing than the little piece of trash that you are throwing "overboard".
You are completely correct that anything you toss out will eventually come back and hit you no matter how hard you throw it. Well, that is if that is the only thing you have tossed and in a completely pure mathematical sense.
At the ISS altitude you are still somewhat inside the Earth's atmosphere anyway, so everything has a bit of atmospheric drag to it. Yeah, it is so little "atmosphere" that it might as well be the best vacuum you can find on any ground-based laboratory, but getting pelted by air molecules still eventually slow down spacecraft, including the ISS. That is also the reason why this tank is even in the news at all right now.
The ISS has to use thrusters and "boosts" from the shuttle visits to raise the altitude of the station periodically. As soon as this happens, the station is in a completely different orbit from the trash, which can then take its sweet time to crash to the Earth eventually.
Both Skylab and MIR suffered the ultimate consequences of what would happen if you didn't perform this periodic boosting... and ultimately came crashing to the Earth. The ISS is large enough that, at least from what I understand, the partner agencies don't ever want to see that happen.
Re:Cloudy (Score:5, Funny)
17 kg at 160 kph could hit the earth anywhere?
What if it hits SOMETHING, like a car in the highway or an airplane?
A Boeing 747 with mass 340,000 kg takes off from JFK airport at 3:00 pm and heads towards Los Angeles at a cruising speed of 800 kph. A refrigerator-sized tank of toxic ammonia with mass 17 kg jettisoned from the ISS 560 days prior is about to achieve re-entry at 160 kph. Where and when will they meet?
I hate these stupid questions.
Re:Cloudy (Score:5, Funny)
This sunday, Sunday, SUNDAY at The Coliseum!
Re:Cloudy (Score:4, Funny)
To be honest, my daughter thought I was crazy...
In her algebra class, she got the "Train Question"! I was so excited!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Two trains leave the station at the same time, heading in opposite directions.
If train A is moving at 80 mph, and train B is moving at 50 mph, why the hell are you wearing that stupid looking hat ?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cloudy (Score:5, Funny)
Newton.
Re:Cloudy (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Cloudy (Score:5, Funny)
It's not gravity; it's Intelligent Falling. Science can try to explain, but if science is real, then why is there no fossil record for gravity?
See, you've got no answer for that, so therefore I win.
Re:Cloudy (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell that to the tens (hundred?) of thousands (?) who die in traffic each year.
Re:Cloudy (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Cloudy (Score:4, Funny)
That's the same reason I don't care what's behind my target when I go shooting.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The chances of me dying from one drivers driving each day is probably similar to that of said debris. More control yes but also more likely to be in an area where I happen to be (in a city among the streets.)
But most people drive many times per year, and there are lot of drivers, why worry about random piece of space junk hitting earth? The likehood of that affecting me is virtually zero. People take much bigger risks than that each and every day, which was my point.
Sure it may be neglectful of Nasa to just
Re:Cloudy (Score:5, Insightful)
There's an old saying that no matter how good a driver you are, you have to worry about all the other idiots on the road. However you still have some degree of control; I can to a certain extent spot crap drivers and give them a wide berth, or be mentally prepared for their craptitude which can shave a litle off the reaction time when I need to take evasive action.
If a lump of random spacecrap is going to land on you, it's going to land on you. There's sod all you can do about it. I doubt the prediction is timely and accurate enough that you could get the heck away or shelter in a basement when it hits.
What kills you matters... (Score:4, Interesting)
Have a look at Professer John Adams' [wikipedia.org] analysis of people's understanding, assessment amd reaction to various sources of risk... He's spent a lifetime studying the whole field of "risk", and his idea of risk amplification seems to be gaining traction within the field:
http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000512.php [socialaffairsunit.org.uk]
depends on the country (Score:4, Informative)
Then stop riding in the goddamn street, motherfucker. It's common courtesy. Ride on the damn sidewalk. go ahead, scaredy-cat. Just try it, I promise that passing policemen will not stop and ticket you.
In Germany, Finland and numerous other countries, cyclists are expected to stay on the sidewalk, and not on the road. They might be ticketed if caught cycling on the road if the road has a sidewalk.
In Great Britain, Ireland, and numerous other countries, cyclists are expected to stay on the road, and not on the sidewalk. They might be ticketed if caught cycling on the sidewalk.
These laws are unevenly enforced.
"toxic ammonia"? (Score:5, Funny)
As opposed to that non-toxic, safe-to-eat, oh-so-good-for-you ammonia they sell down at the cleaning supplies store?
Re:"toxic ammonia"? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've yet to meet any non-Scandinavian that likes it, though apparently they sell they stuff in the Netherlands and Germany too.
Re:"toxic ammonia"? (Score:5, Informative)
Ammonium chloride is not even slightly like ammonia, in the same way that table salt is not even slightly like chlorine gas.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"toxic ammonia"? (Score:5, Funny)
Is idiocy a prerequisite for getting mod points?
No, but it helps! After all, I've been modded up quite a few times over the years...
Re: (Score:3)
Sammiak?
I worked with a Dutchman in Turkey for a couple weeks and he brought "salty licorice".
I munched about half the bag on the first day.
If I ate that much NaCl, I'd be miserable for two days.
Wonderful stuff--my whole head would turn into a licorice fog with every bite.
BTW, If you live in the US and like that sort of thing, "World Market" sells salty licorice fish.
Re:"toxic ammonia"? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, it's called salmiak and it's probably an acquired taste. I have heard of a person who said that it tasted like catpiss. But on the other hand, the Americans invented McDonalds so I guess that makes us even :)
Re:"toxic ammonia"? (Score:5, Funny)
I have heard of a person who said that it tasted like catpiss
I don't know anyone that knows what cat piss tastes like. Do you?
Re:"toxic ammonia"? (Score:4, Funny)
I know what cat piss tastes like, but I've never tried salmiak.
Re:"toxic ammonia"? (Score:5, Funny)
Windex is a lot less bad for you than cat piss. Believe me.
Of course ingesting either one is a seriously FUBUAR proposition, but I digress.
Re:"toxic ammonia"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"toxic ammonia"? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Windex is a lot less bad for you than cat piss. Believe me.
Cheesing is bad, mmkay?
Current data on object (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.reentrynews.com/1998067ba.html [reentrynews.com]
Re:Current data on object (Score:5, Funny)
Could/Should we push all the junk back at earth? (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming a capable laser system, would a gentle laser push towards earth be a good way to clean up space junk? Would away from earth be better?
A laser which would simply annihilate the junk would be admittedly cooler, but could de-orbit be accomplished with much less power?
Re: (Score:2)
A push away from earth would probably be easier, as you could do it with a ground-based laser. I imagine such a push could make the object's orbit elliptical enough that it would re-enter sooner than it otherwise would.
Re:Could/Should we push all the junk back at earth (Score:5, Funny)
Assuming a capable laser system, would a gentle laser push towards earth be a good way to clean up space junk? Would away from earth be better?
A laser which would simply annihilate the junk would be admittedly cooler, but could de-orbit be accomplished with much less power?
Last time I tried to get my car to roll backwards by turning on the headlights, it took a really long time....
Re:Could/Should we push all the junk back at earth (Score:5, Funny)
Last time I tried to get my car to roll backwards by turning on the headlights, it took a really long time....
Well next time, try taping some cardboard over the taillights or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Try saying that after a 17kg chunk hits you on the head at 100mph!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm pretty sure I know how to find out where it will land.
*reconfigures the cell towers to do continuous triangulation on Ellen Muth [wikipedia.org]*
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't our military blast a re-entering spy satellite to pieces a few months ago to avoid accidents and protect secrets? Why couldn't they use the same technique?
That's a good question. It seems to me that blasting creates more, albeit, smaller space junk. I think a benefit is that a blast is roughly going to tend towards spherical, meaning that pieces will be scattered into space, back towards the atmosphere. Of course, some pieces would simply find higher or lower orbits.
Blasting probably takes less energy overall, but pushing might be the most complete way of disposing the junk.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is not the desintegration in earth's atmosphere but the uncertainty about where it's going to happen.
Pushing it by a laser would certainly be a more expensive solution but not do anything about the real problem.
Re:Could/Should we push all the junk back at earth (Score:5, Funny)
They don't have a big enough shark to mount the laser on at the moment.
Did anyone else think.... (Score:5, Interesting)
about how cool this is?
First, here is NASA being about as open about it as they can get. We dumped a toxic container out, and it might hit your house or spouse or both. Possible reason for joy?
Second, 50 years ago there was probably only two people on the entire planet that could have thought such a safety announcement would be put out with all the fame and glory of a news item about a fender bender in the WalMart parking lot!
I kind of look forward to news reports like this:
Space weather warning: Launch News- Today in the Southern Americas regions, the likelihood of debris showers is at Threat Level Orange. Expected drop zone is 15 miles off the coast of Peru as the StarLiner "Moses" launches for Alpha Centauri.
Between the hours of 13:00 GMT and 23:50 GMT, some pieces of the launch platform are expected to survive the searing heat of re-entry. It is possible for pieces up to 57 kilograms to reach the Earth's surface. Please contact the local constabulary for concerns about livestock. Normal insurance claim processes apply.
You all wanted flying cars. I want star cruisers and Earth 2.0.
Re: (Score:2)
I want star cruisers and Earth 2.0.
You already got Earth 2 [imdb.com] back in 1994. Too bad it kinda sucked.
Re: (Score:2)
That was the Hollywood version, and the cheap Hollywood version at that. I want the real one, with funky lizards that talk and stuff like that.
Nasa Suess (Score:5, Funny)
A star is falling
With nasty goo
It's kinda sticky
It smells like poo
It may hit a house
It may hit a mouse
And if you don't look out
It will hit your spouse
But you can't duck
And you can't run
'Cause it's falling faster
Than a Bullet from a Gun
It might hit with a thud
Or a squishy "smoosh"
It may make a hole
Or knock out a tooth
Quickly Quickly!
Find somebody to sue
For the fast and smelly
Outer space goo!
why shouldn't we get close to it?? (Score:2)
Why the hell not? If I find it first... it's mine.
Landfall projection? (Score:2)
I wonder if they can track where this stuff will end up falling to earth. Given the earth is 70% ocean, there is a good chance that it wont hit land. Still. the idea of a refridgerator sized piece of toxic metal slamming down, perhaps anywhere, does make one a little nervous. Still ones chance of getting hit by lightning is greater than having this fall on top of you.
Re:Landfall projection? (Score:4, Insightful)
Natural space junk of similar mass hits the Earth all the time. When was the last time you heard of anyone getting killed by a meteorite?
Re:Landfall projection? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's rare but being hit by metorites *does* happen. I can't find a recorded instance since 2002 (although there's a nice picture of a destroyed car [nasa.gov] from 1992 which probably doesn't count as it didn't hit a person.
Of course by the time it hits someone it's normally little more than a very hot pebble, and causes little more than some burning.
If something the size of a fridge hit you you'd feel a little bit more than a burning sensation!
Re:Landfall projection? (Score:4, Informative)
> It's rare but being hit by metorites *does* happen.
That's my point. six billion people, it's rare that any are hit by all that natural junk, and you are worried about this?
> If something the size of a fridge hit you you'd feel a little bit more than a burning
> sensation!
NASA says no pieces larger than 40lb.
Re:Landfall projection? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've wondered about this before. A good percentage of those six billion people are in places where it might not be reported if one of them were killed by something falling from above... how sure are we that it hasn't happened once or twice before and we just never heard about it?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
People have been hit by meteorites. They've also been hit by lumps of ice falling off airliners. Neither is classed as a major hazard, though.
Collectors beware (Score:3, Insightful)
If anybody found a piece of anything on the ground Monday morning, I would hope they wouldn't get too close to it
Yes, I hope they don't, but in reality if someone encounters a piece of space trash, and see it for space trash, they will pick it up thinking it might be worth something.
It'd be going straight on ebay (Score:2)
Can I be the first to say (Score:2)
..that if I find a piece of anything tomorrow, keeping away is the LAST thing I'll be doing.
thangyewverymuchyoureamarvellousaudiencelaydisgenlmn
TFA Problems (Score:3, Insightful)
"A refrigerator-sized tank of toxic ammonia, tossed from the international space station last year, is expected to hit earth tomorrow afternoon or evening."
Written for maximum impact at the expense of accuracy. Frinstance: Toxic ammonia vs. what? Inert, organism-friendly ammonia? The modifier is as useful as adding "wet" to water.
The distinction would matter if the tank were going to land intact. As TFA states it'll break up during reentry. Any ammonia inside will be explosively released due to reentry heat increasing the pressure, the fact that the first break will destroy any aerodynamic stability and rip the tank and components to shreds nearly instantly, and/or the ammonia being sucked out through the first breach by the low pressure at high altitude and the vacuum created by the air speed.
But that makes the spokescritter's point re: finding pieces moot and the comment mostly FUD. Any pieces will be chunks of metal, possibly with sharp edges but most likely rounded by reentry heat.
To their credit, unlike many previous articles, TFA makes the attempt to indicate the probability of sea vs. land impact rather than run with the FUD hype of the latter alone.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
toxic ammonia is only redundant if you know ammonia is toxic, how many people know Obama is muslim? or any manner of other well knowed things.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And since when did the refridgerator become a unit of measure? Is it a bar fridge? The sort of mini fridge you have in the back of your SUV? A double door fridge-freezer combination?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well in part, it may simply be a warning. Most people do not know all the chemicals out there and may not know ammonia is toxic. Also, just because a chemical is present, doesn't mean it is present in a dangerous state. I keep an explosive alkali metal and a toxic gas in my kitchen. However, they are in the form of NaCl, table salt, and thus are harmless. Noting that it is toxic is a way of indicating that it is either in a free state or in a dangerous compound. However you can very well have ammonia in a h
A tinfoil hat moment... (Score:4, Interesting)
...'If anybody found a piece of anything on the ground Monday morning, I would hope they wouldn't get too close to it,' [a NASA spokesman] said."
Hmm...and why might that be? Some stray ammonia molecules might still be clinging to said pieces? I read somewhere (probably here) that meteorites are actually cool to the touch if they arrive on the ground intact. I don't recall pieces of Columbia starting fires upon impact.
So if temperature isn't the issue, why would a NASA spokesman make such an inane statement?
Andromeda strain (Score:4, Funny)
There mught be some alien microoganism clinging to the debris, that could clot all your blood in seconds (unless you're a wino with an ulcer taking asprin...)
An important detail (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:An important detail (Score:5, Funny)
I'm going to go out on a limb and say... yes, someone probably does.
I blame the vogons (Score:2)
Don't believe NASA. They're in the pocket of the vogons, who are targeting key computer installations at an undisclosed location. ... just as we were about to enter the year of Linux on the desktop! That would have allowed us to form a global beowulf cluster which would finally be able to calculate the number 42, along with a proof that it indeed is the right answer.
Damn vogons and their toxic ammonia. You know what this means, right? Keep a towel handy, and don't keep your laptop in your lap. There's
Hrmm... (Score:5, Funny)
The World Will End? (Score:5, Funny)
Strange warning. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why the concern? By the time it's on the ground, it's stopped, all the ammonia has boiled off, and if it's still hot, it'll cool off pretty quickly? What's the danger? Is there some green goop on it that will turn you into the blob?
Odds Of,,, (Score:5, Funny)
Considering the uncertainty of where it will hit, what does the /. community think would be a good line to place on any of these occuring:
1. Debris Hits John McCain in the head? /. anyway?
2. Debris Hits John McCain AND Sarah Palin in the head?
3. Debris hits Barak Obama in the head?
4. Debris Hits Barak Obama AND Joe Biden in the head?
5. Debris Hits George Bush in the head?
6. Debris Hits Osama bin Laden in the head?
7. Debris hits nobody in the head?
8. Debris hits nobody's house?
9. Debris causes zero real damage to everything?
10. Who cares what we talk about on
Re:Odds Of,,, (Score:4, Funny)
11. Debris hits Cowboy Neal on the head
Then, we can have a real poll.
The Silver Lining (Score:4, Funny)
I need the insurance money... (Score:3, Funny)
PleaseLetOneHitMyCar... PleaseLetOneHitMyCar... PleaseLetOneHitMyCar...
Hmmmmm..... (Score:5, Funny)
A single sheet of newspaper blows off my boat into the water and I get a $100 fine for littering.
NASA intentionally hurls a "refrigerator-sized tank of toxic ammonia" weighing 1400 pounds into the ocean and nothing happens to them.
Something doesn't add up.
What happens if it hits my house? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sovereign immunity. Sue the company that made the tank.
Re: (Score:2)
Wonder how much money I could get from NASA
What I'm thinking is eBay. Can NASA claim ownership if it lands in my cow pasture?
Direction? (Score:2)
Why would it slam into the side of your house? It would probably come from above, right?
Re:clue ? (Score:4, Funny)
I don't expect for people to RTFA here, but at least RTFS. It's not rocket science, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
does anyone have a clue where this stuff will land, or how much damage one of the larger pieces will cause ?
I understand a proverbial Slashdotter does not read the article but you didn't even see the summary!
Re:clue ? (Score:5, Informative)
TFA says the largest piece could be about 40 pounds and hit at 100 mph. That wouldn't dent your car, it would totally destroy it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
TFA says the largest piece could be about 40 pounds and hit at 100 mph. That wouldn't dent your car, it would totally destroy it.
If you're driving along a highway at 100mph, I have a hard time imaging that hitting a 40 pound child would totally destroy a car. Serious damage, sure.
Re:clue ? (Score:5, Funny)
A 40 pound child is a little more...yielding than a 40 pound chunk of metal. Also, the 40 pound chunk of metal would presumably be falling on the car from above, not hitting the car head-on. So yah, it may not actually reduce the entire car to a smoking crater, but it would likely total it.
So, while I have no doubt you have plentiful experience striking 40 pound children with vehicles, I'm not sure that experience is directly applicable to the situation at hand.
Re:clue (Score:5, Funny)
So, while I have no doubt you have plentiful experience striking 40 pound children with vehicles, I'm not sure that experience is directly applicable to the situation at hand.
We start by assuming a perfectly spherical 40lb child of uniform density...
Re:clue (Score:5, Funny)
Re:clue ? (Score:4, Funny)
M_car * V_car = (~1000 kg)(44.7 m/s) ~= 44700 kg*m/s
M_child * V_child = (~20 kg)(44.7 m/s) ~= 894 kg*m/s
The fact that the child is a lot more *squishy* than the car has little to do with it. If you want a comparable situation, think of throwing a turkey at 100mph at a parked car. I guarantee you that car's not going to come out looking to good.
Re:clue ? (Score:5, Funny)
> If you want a comparable situation, think of throwing a turkey at 100mph at a parked car. I guarantee you that car's not going to come out looking to good.
Is that a frozen or thawed turkey??
Re:clue ? (Score:5, Funny)
> If you want a comparable situation, think of throwing a turkey at 100mph at a parked car. I guarantee you that car's not going to come out looking to good.
Is that a frozen or thawed turkey??
That reminds me of the story about when they were testing high speed electric trains for what happens when a bird-strike occurs. To do this, they got hold of a linear accelerator, put a turkey in it, and fired it at the front of the train, head on. The bird went straight through the windscreen, the driver's seat, and embedded itself deep within the transformer block behind! To say that the train engineers were dismayed misses the point by a country mile, but they cheered up rather a lot when the realized that they'd forgotten to defrost the turkey first, and that repeating with a fresh bird resulted in a safe splat with no danger to human life.
I'll let someone else karma-whore with the link.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Totally destroy yes [nasa.gov], but it might also increase it's value [mail-archive.com].
Re:clue ? (Score:4, Funny)