Satellite to fall Jan 6th-19th

[edyle]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/catastrophe-looms-as-toxic-13tonne-mars-probe-falls-to-earth-6278357.html


The heaviest interplanetary spacecraft ever launched is about to become one of the most dangerous man-made objects to fall from space when it crashes to the ground early in the new year.
The Russian Phobos-Ground probe was destined to land on a moon of Mars but problems soon after launch in November meant that it was stuck in an unstable, low-Earth orbit.
Russia's space agency, Roscosmos, said yesterday that the lorry-sized probe weighing 13.2 tonnes and laden with 11 tonnes of toxic rocket fuel and 10kg of radioactive cobalt-57 will fall to Earth between 6 and 19 January.
The agency told the Associated Press that it will not be possible to calculate the precise crash site until a few days before the £120m probe re-enters the Earth's atmosphere.
However, it insisted that much of the dangerous material will be incinerated during re-entry and any remaining fragments will pose little danger to people on the ground.
Phobos-Ground, which was designed to bring back rock samples from Phobos, one of two Martian moons, was launched from the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.
It separated from its booster rocket 11 minutes after launch but its engines subsequently failed to fire it out of Earth's orbit.
Roscosmos said that between 20 and 30 fragments of the probe are expected to fall to Earth somewhere between 51.4 degrees north of the Equator and 51.4 degrees south, which covers much of the most densely populated areas on Earth.
Some experts said soon after the probe failed to leave the Earth's orbit that the on-board fuel of nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine could freeze solid before re-entry, which may make it less liable to burning up during re-entry.

[Falcon]

As the one that belonged to the US should have fallen over the US, I hope Siberia takes the hit for this piece of failed junk.

[Sirius]

I never understand the desire to see any spacecraft fall on anyone's head (so to speak). It was a ambitious mission and a huge loss to science. One that cannot be repeated for years to come. I for one hope it simply falls somewhere that will not cause damage, wherever that somewhere may turn out to be.

If it manages to burn out the toxic fuel on board on the way down then the open ocean is probably the safest place for it to hit.

[edyle]

I never understand the desire to see any spacecraft fall on anyone's head (so to speak). It was a ambitious mission and a huge loss to science. One that cannot be repeated for years to come. I for one hope it simply falls somewhere that will not cause damage, wherever that somewhere may turn out to be.

If it manages to burn out the toxic fuel on board on the way down then the open ocean is probably the safest place for it to hit.

It will certainly break up and chances are most of the debris will drop harmlessly in the Pacific.
What is bothersome is we have not yet solved this problem; we can't just continue putting up satellites that we know will eventually drop 'somewhere'.

That massive SPACE STATION is a question. I would imagine the problem might not exist with it. If it becomes unuseable perhaps the contingency plan would be to dismantle it while in orbit and try to initiate a controlled drop of small pieces. Meanwhile, while it is manned and maintained, I suppose it can be kept in indefinite stable orbit. Of cause there's also the calculated risk of it being hit by a 10 foot diameter solid iron core meteor;

come to think of it, NASA and the other space agencies probably get the jitters whenever meteor shower times come along while the rest of us look up at the sky waiting for a pretty little light show!

[Sirius]

It will certainly break up and chances are most of the debris will drop harmlessly in the Pacific.
What is bothersome is we have not yet solved this problem; we can't just continue putting up satellites that we know will eventually drop 'somewhere'.

That massive SPACE STATION is a question. I would imagine the problem might not exist with it. If it becomes unuseable perhaps the contingency plan would be to dismantle it while in orbit and try to initiate a controlled drop of small pieces. Meanwhile, while it is manned and maintained, I suppose it can be kept in indefinite stable orbit. Of cause there's also the calculated risk of it being hit by a 10 foot diameter solid iron core meteor;

come to think of it, NASA and the other space agencies probably get the jitters whenever meteor shower times come along while the rest of us look up at the sky waiting for a pretty little light show!

The ISS will eventually meet its fate the same way other space stations have: a controlled atmospheric burn with a resulting splashdown in the pacific. It is an assembly of parts carried up inside the space shuttle, and so if Mir and Skylab were able to be safely deorbited then so can ISS; albeit in a dismantled manner.

This may not even happen in the near future. It is massive and expensive outpost that could well be handed over to new parties at the end of its service life. It may well turn out more feasible to simply boost it into a higher orbit where it can sit until private companies are ready to take over operations. They don't have to worry about meteor showers much either. There is constant monitoring of the ISS and anytime debris may cross its path the station is simply maneuvered out of the way.

This is not of course to downplay your original general point about space debris. It is a huge problem and one that is probably best handled by the construction of collection tugs that can clean up and dispose of the debris. Small chunks can probably be sent into the atmosphere, but I imagine one good way is to collect the big pieces and send it on a one way trip into the sun. We have the solar system's largest incinerator at our disposal.

[edyle]

The ISS will eventually meet its fate the same way other space stations have: a controlled atmospheric burn with a resulting splashdown in the pacific. It is an assembly of parts carried up inside the space shuttle, and so if Mir and Skylab were able to be safely deorbited then so can ISS; albeit in a dismantled manner.

This may not even happen in the near future. It is massive and expensive outpost that could well be handed over to new parties at the end of its service life. It may well turn out more feasible to simply boost it into a higher orbit where it can sit until private companies are ready to take over operations. They don't have to worry about meteor showers much either. There is constant monitoring of the ISS and anytime debris may cross its path the station is simply maneuvered out of the way.

This is not of course to downplay your original general point about space debris. It is a huge problem and one that is probably best handled by the construction of collection tugs that can clean up and dispose of the debris. Small chunks can probably be sent into the atmosphere, but I imagine one good way is to collect the big pieces and send it on a one way trip into the sun. We have the solar system's largest incinerator at our disposal.

Yes.

Execpt for the last part.
Trying to send junk to the Sun sounds expensive; simple solution would be to dismantle junk into small chunks which then sent to incinerate into the atmosphere.

[Sirius]

Would it really be that expensive though? I envision automated ships with propulsion such as ion thrusters instead of the costly chemical rockets typically used today. The tug just needs to haul a load out of Earth orbit, release it, and then let momentum do the rest. It's a space disposal system so the time taken to reach the sun isn't really an issue. I suspect once such spacecraft exist it would be less expensive than going about cutting debris into smaller chunks.

Either way, while discussing the pros and cons of various approaches is interesting, there is a bigger problem: lack of will and funding for such a project. Actually doing something about space debris seems to unfortunately be a matter on the back burner. There have been a lot of issues with space junk making headlines recently and one can only hope this helps bring more urgency to the matter.

[edyle]

Would it really be that expensive though? I envision automated ships with propulsion such as ion thrusters instead of the costly chemical rockets typically used today. The tug just needs to haul a load out of Earth orbit, release it, and then let momentum do the rest. It's a space disposal system so the time taken to reach the sun isn't really an issue. I suspect once such spacecraft exist it would be less expensive than going about cutting debris into smaller chunks.

Either way, while discussing the pros and cons of various approaches is interesting, there is a bigger problem: lack of will and funding for such a project. Actually doing something about space debris seems to unfortunately be a matter on the back burner. There have been a lot of issues with space junk making headlines recently and one can only hope this helps bring more urgency to the matter.

As far as cost or sending something completely out of Earth orbit is concerned, I expect if that option were to be pursued we'd junk the stuff to the Moon instead of trying to swing it all the way to the sun.

[Sirius]

Lunar disposal...yikes. I hope not.