DescentBB

is now passe'. The new frontier for the wacko environmentlist is space:

"Since Sputnik first orbited Earth, mankind has shot into space thousands of tons of hi-tech gubbins. Much still streaks through the firmament as so-called "space junk". Now a US rocket company is offering the highest bidder the chance to lob a package onto the Moon. Are we guilty of interplanetary littering?"


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3623239.stm

space junk is dangerous. satelites often are hit and damaged. spacewalks are dangerous as a result.

but this is all GREAT isn't it woody

horray for space debris, right

(urgh, tired, crancky)

The article wrote:The items range from whole broken-down satellites [...]even a glove lost by the US astronaut Edward White during a 1965 spacewalk [...] this assorted space junk can travel at phenomenal speeds - 18,000mph if it orbits 600 miles above Earth - and can do phenomenal damage if it strikes anything

The slap heard around the world.

HEH!

Yep, space junk is a growing problem, at least NASA has started being more careful of what they leave behind in orbit now.

It would be really nice if someone could develop some sort of unmanned "space cleaners." You could probably get rid of most of the debris by just shifting it into an unstable orbit, causing it to harmlessly burn up in the atmosphere. There are some things up there, however, that would be worth saving. As a side note, does anyone know if any early sattelites (e.g. Sputnik), or if any lunar/service modules from the Apollo missions, are still in orbit? I know it's highly unlikely, but wouldn't it be great to bring back something along the lines of Sputnik or the Eagle lunar module from Apollo 11?

Roidy, if there were no space junk...that would mean man never made it to space and we would still be ignorant planet huggers. I suppose that would be great.

i'm a "planet hugger" rofl

space junk is a problem though. it sounded like you were saying it is not a problem at all.

if you said "space junk is a problem, but the pollution was nessesary for early exploring, so i think it was worth it", i would have agreed with you and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

but... wouldn't this have been outof character?
i mean, you HAVE to bash any points of the political left don't you, otherwise what's the use in posting right?

Shutup and buy more gas

Roid, all I was doing was pointing out the ludicrous lengths the environmentalist will go to find a cause celebre. SUV's were bad enough, but now space junk?

this spacejunk problem isn't anything new
http://www.zzz.com.ru/zzz_original_site/114.html (look at last article, the one before the burning videocard, we wrote this in Jan2002, but it was nothing new then either.)



you can't say it's not a problem... just coz you don't like it.
we (that being earth) currently track space debris as much as we can, to avoid problems. why don't you ring up a space agency like nasa and tell them that they are wasting their time organising the tracking of these objects because you know better, "it's not a problem".

talk about head in the sand.

EGAD! Earths got lice!

I'm thinking more like dandruff, but lice works too.

The images seem improbably dense though.

Yea, I got a kick out of the misleading scale of the debris. It's a miracle we can even see the stars anymore.

do i really need to tell you it's not to scale?
don't be daft, the size of the objects needed to be eggsadurated so you could see them, treat them as coordinate points.

Precisely. Exaggerated to what degree? Space is, as far as we're concerned, a rather infinite place. The figure it completely misleading when it depicts a wayward handglove the size of San Antonio.

i'm pretty sure the distances from earth are not eggsadurated (i'll relearn and remember howto spell this one day).

the captions accompanying the pictures are as such (if you won't goto zzzonline):
"some of the known pieces of junk - this represents a tiny fraction of the total"
"The dots are not actual size they just represent the positions of known debris".

the dots are not ment to 'indicate size and therefor instil fear'. it's a graphical representation, and knowing what i know about interfaces, i can tell you that there's no other way to graphically do it.
please, just take my word for it.

i don't think "MIA hand-gloves" are marked on these diagrams here, the marked dots would be the biggest (and easiest trackable) debris. if you wanted to mark every single bit of debris on a pic that size: you wouldn't be able to see the earth in the picture.

exxagerated to the point where we can pick them out with the naked eye.

but something tells me if they were to do it to scale, you'd need a microscope just to see the points.

bash wrote:Yea, I got a kick out of the misleading scale of the debris. It's a miracle we can even see the stars anymore.

Maybe it's not the stars that you're seeing, bash.

You could arguably justify the larger scale due to the much higher speeds involved.

.... I once saw the International Space Station, with an attached space shuttle, orbit by Vancouver at sun set... ! What an amazing hunk of hardware that is !.. when seen through just the naked eye or binoculars... ! ... And soon that too will be space junk !

you serious El Ka Bong? i've never been able to see satelites. i've have to keep an extra eye out .