[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