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

From: Greg Catterton <star_wars_collector_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:28:08 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <286906.93584.qm_at_web45606.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

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


      
Received on Mon 03 Nov 2008 04:28:08 PM PST