Oouh, this is the kind of world press that NASA doesn't need. I want to blame the media for this, but maybe NASA is to blame.
They have a refrigerator-sized camera stand that must be destroyed and they propose that they are forced to drop it to Earth at the risk of 40# chunks surviving the descent and a 1-in-5000 chance of injuring/killing people.
spacejunk article2 (the deed is done)
Before I get too instigated, I would like to believe that this is just a political ploy on behalf of the bureaucratic $32B/yr department to plead for more Space Shuttle trips.
However, I wonder why this issue has to come to light to the public "after much careful deliberation" at NASA. First, why isn't the Russian Progress cargo ship used to dispose of this?
Second, can they break it down into smaller pieces that are less-likely to survive the burnup in descent?
Third, why don't they attach a rocket to it and accelerate/control its descent to guarantee its destruction or ocean impact?
Is this just a media-starved NASA -- any news is good news that raises the publics interest? I think this is foul and irresponsible to waste such taxpayer money campaigning this way and not quietly resolving these problems. If they cannot solve the problem with a graceful solution, then publish the outline of the deliberations and pros/cons and tap into global solutions by encouraging new solutions beyond the set that NASA has already considered.
2 comments:
I would have to believe that there is much left unsaid and/or incorrect in the article. Seems as though there is a lot of brainpower at Nasa who would have conjured up a more palitable solution, had there been one available. The mere fact that they have to orbit adjust the space station to avoid the junk makes it a precarious solution. And if accurate, the risks to humans also seem startlingly high - one in 5000 of injuring a person???? How is that possible? And one in 1000 for rocket launches? Who actually is at risk there? Someone in a boat?
It would be interesting to know more about this....
Nasa's website does not mention this, nor is there an official statement by Nasa in the article.
Post a Comment