Trash from Intl Space Station, tank of toxic ammonia coolant,expected to strike earth on 11/2. No other way?

Yes, I really need to spell check my replies properly. Anyway. I was merely
saying that we seem to nearly always say that if its only a small amount of
rubbish, it is fine, but never re assess things as quantities grow. I mean,
eventually, the iss will be beyond economic use and if its left there will
plummet down somewhere. Has anyone thought about this?

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Nov 1, 1:27 am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
So what is the difference between this and normal ammonia? I'm not saying
this is what they should have done, I thought at the time it was a bit
silly, but was told then that no fixings were available to secure this
tank
into a shuttle.
In this case are we saying it will make it through interact? I'd doubt it
personally, and in the grand scheme of things, the small amount of gass
when
taken against the volume of the atmosphere is hardly any concern. Of
course, like anything, I have felt that using the heat of re entry to get
rid of junk was a risky and short sighted business, as this is how we
ended
up with rubbish mountains in the plare stations and indeed contaminated
the
environment generally. IE we start small and get bigger and nobody
rethinks
it until something bad happens.

Brian

As of decades ago we've trashed our environment anyway, so what's the
difference? (is that what you're saying)

~ BG

BradGuth wrote:

With new and improved technology, why doesn't ISS orbit above 500 km?

A maximum of about 425km is due to the rendezvous operational limits of
the Soyuz (Soyuz can hit 460km, but is lower due to fuel consumption
during rendezvous). Add the heavy-lifting limits of the shuttle and you
see the altitudes stay down in the mid 300km range.

Granted, the shuttle can reach a theoretical altitude of 960km, but
that's pretty much emptying the tanks to get there with practically zero
cargo. IIRC, the current record is around 600km (one of the Hubble
flights).

I'm sure the sights would be quite interesting from an altitude over
900km--I recall the one comment in a documentary about the flights to
Hubble where the crew were surprised with how different things (Earth)
looked compared to ISS flights.

On Nov 2, 12:49 am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
Yes, I really need to spell check my replies properly. Anyway. I was merely
saying that we seem to nearly always say that if its only a small amount of
rubbish, it is fine, but never re assess things as quantities grow. I mean,
eventually, the iss will be beyond economic use and if its left there will
plummet down somewhere. Has anyone thought about this?

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

On Nov 1, 1:27 am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
So what is the difference between this and normal ammonia? I'm not saying
this is what they should have done, I thought at the time it was a bit
silly, but was told then that no fixings were available to secure this
tank
into a shuttle.
In this case are we saying it will make it through interact? I'd doubt it
personally, and in the grand scheme of things, the small amount of gass
when
taken against the volume of the atmosphere is hardly any concern. Of
course, like anything, I have felt that using the heat of re entry to get
rid of junk was a risky and short sighted business, as this is how we
ended
up with rubbish mountains in the plare stations and indeed contaminated
the
environment generally. IE we start small and get bigger and nobody
rethinks
it until something bad happens.

Brian

As of decades ago we've trashed our environment anyway, so what's the
difference? (is that what you're saying)

~ BG

ISS could be trashed a piece at a time, with reasonable controlled
reentry per item could put 99.9% of it's remaining mass into a given
ocean that's full of expanding dead zones anyway.

Terminating ISS shouldn't be all that insurmountable, although it'll
likely cost us billions in order to do just that much.

How about keeping it up there as another spendy Smithsonian museum,
with an Rn222 ion thruster? (how many all-inclusive hundreds of
billions would that cost us?)

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
http://www.alaskapublishing.com
http://www.guarddogbooks.com

On Nov 2, 6:53 am, Who Needs Fenders? wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
With new and improved technology, why doesn't ISS orbit above 500 km?

A maximum of about 425km is due to the rendezvous operational limits of
the Soyuz (Soyuz can hit 460km, but is lower due to fuel consumption
during rendezvous). Add the heavy-lifting limits of the shuttle and you
see the altitudes stay down in the mid 300km range.

Granted, the shuttle can reach a theoretical altitude of 960km, but
that's pretty much emptying the tanks to get there with practically zero
cargo. IIRC, the current record is around 600km (one of the Hubble
flights).

I'm sure the sights would be quite interesting from an altitude over
900km--I recall the one comment in a documentary about the flights to
Hubble where the crew were surprised with how different things (Earth)
looked compared to ISS flights.

Thanks for the informative feedback.

However, that's because ISS is still flying within a relatively thick
part of our upper atmosphere, where there's still some shielding
benefits and a considerably smaller SAA (radiation zone of death)
contour to avoid.

Extra boosters and/or increased fuel capacity is not the primary
reason, but fits within the old plan of limited orbital action that
more or less relates to protecting our frail DNA. Increased exposure
to our Selene/moon gamma and X-ray dosage is still every bit as bad if
not worse off than having to avoid the SAA contour, as there are human
DNA trauma limits that need to be given a fair safety margin, or else.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
http://www.alaskapublishing.com
http://www.guarddogbooks.com

Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes, I really need to spell check my replies properly. Anyway. I was merely
saying that we seem to nearly always say that if its only a small amount of
rubbish, it is fine, but never re assess things as quantities grow. I mean,
eventually, the iss will be beyond economic use and if its left there will
plummet down somewhere. Has anyone thought about this?



I assume they will dump it in the Pacific, like Mir...using a Progress
spacecraft as a retro module.

Pat

BradGuth wrote:
Increased exposure
to our Selene/moon gamma and X-ray dosage is still every bit as bad if
not worse off than having to avoid the SAA contour, as there are human
DNA trauma limits that need to be given a fair safety margin, or else.

Good points too... not sure what the radiation-related altitude limits
are (or if they've even been computed given the hard-limits imposed by
Soyuz).

Who Needs Fenders? wrote:

A maximum of about 425km is due to the rendezvous operational limits
of the Soyuz (Soyuz can hit 460km, but is lower due to fuel
consumption during rendezvous). Add the heavy-lifting limits of the
shuttle and you see the altitudes stay down in the mid 300km range.

There's also the inner Van Allen Belt to contend with; get it much
higher that it's at right now and long term radiation exposure for the
crew becomes excessive.

Pat