Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Kaise B, Shelbyville, TN — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:45:27 GMT

Millions, maybe billions to produce such a spaceship and no parts or pieces can be salvaged or reused?

Seems wasteful

Not that I have a solution as to a less destructive re-entry

Side note : 17 tons huh?... Well, there was an earthquake that measured 7.3 on the richter scale in the Southern Pacific today. I'm sure there's no relation between the two stories but I thought I would point it out. Cool coincidence?

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

ed davenport — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:47:11 GMT

although I can understand them using it as a meteor, I've always wondered why they don't either send these towards the sun or towards the Oort belt and beyond?

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

chicken little — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:56:10 GMT

Does the Wall Street connection mean the sky is falling?

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Cassandra, Connecticut — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:44:02 GMT

These people kill me. Instead of dumping this back on our planet and into our ocean, why not fire it towards the sun where it will burn up and cause no problems to anyone. It can't be reused anyway.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Trevor — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:45:58 GMT

After hearing the latest news I hope the Hubble doesn't have the same fate any time soon.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Eric, Salinas, CA — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:07:12 GMT

A pity that the Jules Verne ATV modules aren't reusable, kind of a waste of a good spaceship. A bigger pity is that the shuttle program is ending and our country is caught with it's pants down for 5 years for being able to put our own astronauts in space ourselves.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Mike Sprinkle Key West Fl. — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:11:26 GMT

Thats right fill our oceans with space junk. Nobody knows what kind of hazard's will be created what a bunch of fools.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

steve smyth — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:43:58 GMT

RE alternate re-entry methods...Gaia Two re-enters Earth's Atmosphere with no blazing burn in...check her out...click the name below...
I agree with Mike, Key West...junk everywhere ya look.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Jimmy Joe, Dallas, TX — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:49:42 GMT

The ATV isn't capable of reaching the sun. It would require far too much fuel to push it out of orbit. Yes, the sky is falling. It's falling on you...don't look up!

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

James, Denver, CO — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:02:11 GMT

[...] The ISS (International Space Station) is in low earth orbit DEEP in earth's gravitational well. Orbital velocity is roughly 16,000 MPH. To reach escape velocity the craft would need to travel in excess of 25,000 MPH. That is an extra 9,000 MPH just to escape earth's gravity well. Why expend the significant amount of extra fuel, just to dump the trash? Besides the fact that it would require significantly more fuel just to get the extra weight of the additional fuel into low earth orbit.

Everything that "burned up" in the atmosphere will fall to the ground and be recycled by the planet. All the raw materials of the craft that would be dumped into the sun would be forever wasted.

To put it into the “Oort belt” as suggested by "ed davenport" (is this the same as the Oort Cloud?) would expend an even more fantastic amount of energy as you try to escape the Sun's significant gravitational well - a feat that has not yet been accomplished by either Voyager 1 or 2 which happen to be the most distant man made objects ever put into space and have no less than a 30 year head start.

Why don't we simply tear it apart and feed the parts into the space station's "Mr. Fusion" while we are suggesting impossible solutions. Or maybe just "beam" the trash down to an earthside recycling plant?

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Arthur Grant, Mission Viejo — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:15:38 GMT

Team, there isn't really very much if anything left to fall in the ocean. The cost to make it re-usable is huge, in addition to designing the vehicle to survive re-entry, you need to have someone to pick it up. As for sending it out to space, your talking some very expensive, very sophisticated navigation capability and huge amount of energy to pull free of earth. Notice if you didn't regularly boost the space station it would fall to earth. These are expensive non-trivial considerations. All they did here was use earths atmosphere as a giant trash incinerator.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Jimmy Crackhorns — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:20:40 GMT

I have to wonder why it was never questioned about the amount of energy required to send into the sun....it's not like this space adventure isn't expensive enough as it is....billions per flight...I can't wait to see the next generatoin of light composit vehicles and the next generatio of rockets and motors used for launching them....

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

John doe — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:29:04 GMT

It's all about Orbital mechanics people, the ATV was never designed for nor would never have had enough fuel to leave the Earth's orbit. The safest, most cost effective way to supply the ISS is an unmanned ATV that is designed to be disposable by burning it up in the Earth's atmosphere. Even weighing in at 17 tons, most of it will be ionized in the atmosphere and only small fragments will make it the the ocean surface. No dangerous chemicals will survive reentry and just about every bit of material (and energy) that was taken from the Earth will be returned to the Earth.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Til — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:30:06 GMT

It seems like if they brought the thing in at a slight enough slope they should be able to burn everything up as it slowly gains reentry into the atmosphere rather than having to worry about running around and picking up all the pieces...

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Christian Avondale,Arizona — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:34:44 GMT

Does anyone know why we can't just send it to the sun?

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Bill, Columbus OH — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:38:49 GMT

The reason they can't shoot it into the sun or into deep space is because of the massive amount of fuel needed. It took a rocket capable of over two million pounds of thrust to push the New Horizons (the Pluto mission) spacecraft, and that ship only weighs about half a ton.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

michael north — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:40:52 GMT

because it costs a fortune to have enough fuel to reach escape velocity is why you dump it

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

John Clayton, Northborough, MA — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:41:23 GMT

FYI - it takes a very large amount of energy (fuel) to escape the earth's gravity, and even more to lose enough velocity to drop into the sun. That is just not practical. Better is to use a small amount of fuel to drop the vehicle down into the atmosphere, where drag takes over. That is much less risky and less expensive than launching a huge amount of fuel to head to the sun.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Thomas, Modesto, CA — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:50:59 GMT

99% of that pile will burn up in the atmosphere. None of it will fill the oceans with space junk, and it wont lead to "global warming". The craft burning up in the atmosphere has ZERO effect on anybody.
Put your foil hats back on everyone.

In order to "shoot it to the sun" it would require a second rocket phase to break earths gravity farther than the ISS, which is why just letting it burn up in the atmosphere is a more feasible option.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Chris, Tolland CT — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:25:05 GMT

Anyone who understands orbital physics wouldn't be whining about space junk in our oceans or shooting things into the sun. Do you have any idea how much extra fuel would be required to accelerate the vehicle out of orbit? If you want to use a Saturn V to ferry supplies to the ISS, that's fine. You pay for it.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Byron Jones, Miami, Florida — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:26:10 GMT

Just to clear up a few things:

1. The ship does not cost billions. The cost for the module itself was probably under $20 million ( plus launch costs). That money is not lost or wasted; the ship performed its function and its useful life had come to and end.

2. They are not dumping trash into the Pacific Ocean. The ship burns up in the atmosphere, as the photo at the very top of the article demonstrates. The reason they deorbit over the ocean is that if some small fragments of metal survive to the ground, they are less likely to hit a person or property.

3. Sending the trash into the Sun or into the Oort cloud would require a huge amount of fuel, because the ship would have to escape Earth orbit. Every KG of fuel costs more than USD $20,000 by the time you get it into orbit. When the atmosphere is perfectly capable of burning it up, spending double the money to launch it at the Sun would be insanely wasteful.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Otis Boone, Sacramento, Calif — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:37:59 GMT

by the time these things fall into the ocean, all the fuel is spent. These things, like old ships, go to the bottom of the ocean and create reefs.

The US Navy has a program that provides old warships and carriers for use as artificial reefs.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Scott Marcus — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:42:46 GMT

The reason that this space junk isn't sent to the sun or out into the deepest reaches of space is extremely simple. It takes fuel/energy to move these objects out of earth orbit. It's not a simple matter of just pointing it in the right direction and giving it a tap.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Rodney Sibert, Trussville, AL — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:11:21 GMT

How about a positive comment, eh?
This is the most cost efficent way to eliminate trash in our orbit. It would take a lot of fuel to send something like this to the Sun. In addition this give us some study time on the breakup of debris.
Come on guys. Don't be so negitive.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Brian Shiro, Ewa Beach, Hawaii — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:27:09 GMT

It is indeed disappointing that the Jules Verne is not reusable. However, with the successful SpaceX launch of the Falcon 1 yesterday, the stage is set for that company to win NASA's COTS competition and become the commercial cargo and crew launch and spacecraft provider to the ISS, perhaps as soon as 2010 (meaning there will be no gap in which the US must rely upon Russia or Europe to reach the ISS).

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Brent, Oklahoma City, OK — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:33:05 GMT

Send it to the sun!?! Do you have any idea how much more fuel is required to leave earth orbit? That is ridiculous. Also, it is very costly to try to reuse these ships (more are going to be built). It is essentially a glorified storage bin, it doesn't have the type of instruments that make it cost effective to reuse. Let's all try to become more educated before posting.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:36:58 GMT

Kaise B.,
If they are connected it's a whole new warfare.

Mike Sprinkle,
I think one hazard is that it might fall on some fishermen. But it looked cool so it was worth the risk. But if it brings back a space virus and kills the oceans then it wasn't worth the risk.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Scott Goodsell South Sioux City, Ne — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:43:55 GMT

U.S. space shuttles, three birds in the hand that fly fine and are designed for 100 missions each being retired after less then 50 missions to divert funds to the Orion moon/mars project.
Hey! let's use the Wall Street bail-out money to fund the Orion project and keep the shuttles flying until 2015. Does this make any sense to anyone but me?

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

James, P'cola FL — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:02:35 GMT

For all those who think sending used ATV's into the Sun is a good answer, they need to remember that even though they have reached orbit the ATV has not escaped Earth's gravity and to shoot it to the Sun would require either more fuel or a bigger rocket engine. First they have to truely leave Earth.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Dan — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:04:34 GMT

the ATV didnt have enough fuel to break away from Earth orbit. a controlled diposal is better than the off chance it might hit a populated place.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

David, Fort Bragg, California — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:23:28 GMT

I am surprised and dismayed by the tone of many of the comments. A simple and reasonable question warrants and deserves a simple answer. Science requires and is best served by polite, intelligent discourse. Leave the petty insults and pseudo-intellectual posturing for the politicians.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Thomas, Modesto, CA — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:27:11 GMT

actually NEVER ONCE has the space shuttle itself been the cause of failure. Each catastrophe has been due to a failure in the launch apparatus.

Simpler solution? Build a better launch apparatus. One that is 100% reuseable (in my world, it features a external tank and SRB's wrapped in one piece, that glides itself back into the ocean to be recovered).

The shuttles themselves are awesome pieces of machines. They are fully capable of doing the job they were designed to do, and are still capable to this day of doing it. While they are unnecessary for lunar missions, i still think they should keep at least one or two of them ready just in case. Never know when you might need one to recover crewman in case we get another Apollo 13 up there with the new capsules, a Shuttle would be perfect for the task of crewman retrival. Mothball it, and what, depend on the Russians?

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Jim Jones — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:06:47 GMT

Wow, those are some fascinating images indeed. I guess junking up the ocean in the name of space travel is OK.

Jiff
www.privacy.es.tc

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

justcorbly — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:31:13 GMT

1. The Shutles are being retired primarily because they're old and worn out. Any diversion of funds is necessary because Bush added tasking to NASA withut adding funds. Don't blame NASA for the end of the Shuttle program.

2. As the Shuttle has demonstrated, creating a truely reusable spacecraft is very expensive and very difficult. (Remember that the Shuttle is essentially rebuilt after each mission.) Reusable spacecraft make a lot of sense if they spend their lifetimes in space, out of Earth's atmosphere. But, adding reuse capability to any vehicle that needs to go through reentry is of debatable purpose.

3. For those worried about the damage done by this vehicle in renetry, remember that thousands of tons of all kinds of stuff falls into the atmosphere every day. It's all alien stuff, to boot.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Ed, Atlanta GA — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:56:56 GMT

Scott, the shuttles have an established failure rate of 1 in 44 while most capsule systems have a far smaller failure rate. If you want to see another one of those birds burn up soon, taking another crew with it, then you are more than welcome to. Granted the Orion moon/mars project isn't as cost effective as it could be it's the only thing we have on the drawing board, it's just a shame it's taken NASA so long to start developing a replacement system.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Simon, Australia — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:00:19 GMT

Wow, that's spectacular
Feel sorry for the money that went into it tho...

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Tony Fusco — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:55:43 GMT

God... NASA REALLY needs to clear things up when they launch stuff.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

CJCreel — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:08:22 GMT

I would love, for once, to see a "non-reusable" supply vehicle that was hardened for extended exposure to space. If properly designed couldn't these vehicles - or even the fuel tanks, for that matter - be converted to "modules" to add space to the ISS?

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Spudmonkey, Denver CO — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:28:43 GMT

I have to say, I've enjoyed reading the comments on this...both serious and "suspect". I've not laughed that hard in awhile..

Thanks

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Brad, Rocky Hill, CT — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:32:41 GMT

Two other disadvantages of sending space junk to the sun: (1) If we start to do it, everyone will do it, and the mass of the sun will increase significantly. Currently, it's scheduled to become a red giant a few billions years from now....add too much mass, and it will exceed the limit and go supernova much sooner, causing a bad day for our great, great, great (to the power of 1000) grandchildren; (2) The mass of the earth would decrease such that our orbit would be effected, causing havoc with the seasons. ////// JUST KIDDING!!!!! ////// (Hope this thread can stand some humor...any good comebacks?)

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Chris R, Richmond, VA — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:52:29 GMT

As to the comment about sending the space junk to the Sun, not a good idea. A 17 ton module doesn't seem like very much debris to something a large as the Sun, and it isn't. Humans have a nasty habit of overdoing things. It's cumulative effects we need to worry about.

Example: 1 Rhino virus cell invades your body, no problem. we can deal. Now add 100,000 rhino virus to your body, now you have a problem.

Over simplified, but you get the picture.

Our sun converts Hydrogen to Helium. It converts Helium to Lithium. It converts Lithium to Deryllium. The process of Element conversion continues until the Sun finally converts Manganese to Iron. Only at tthe Supernova stage can a star generate the other elements on the Periodic Table.

Adding Heavy Metals to the sun, over time, will cause the fusion reaction to slow and will age our Sun faster the more we dump into it.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Joseph, Macomb, MI — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:03:30 GMT

Scott,
I think 1% of the Wall Street bail-out money would be enough keep the shuttles flying and get Orion/
Ares finished on time. Unfortunately, the way things are going with the economy, I would not be surprised to see the next administration cancel all human spaceflight programs.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

David in Dallas, TX — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:16:42 GMT

From space.com Q&A:
"Estimates vary, but the USGS says at least 1,000 million grams, or roughly 1,000 tons of material enters the atmosphere every year and makes its way to Earths surface".
So, why worry about an extra 17 tons?

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

John Doe, Seattle, Wash. — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:50:19 GMT

Duh, "let's just fire it into the sun...", that can't possibly have any ill effects for the entire solar system when a single solar flare could incinerate the entire planet.

[ALAN ADDS: I'm sure others will weigh in here, but for one thing, throwing a 17-ton object into the sun is like throwing a particle of dust onto a fire. For another thing, solar prominences wouldn't come anywhere close to reaching as far as Earth. And for yet another thing, as other commenters have pointed out, shooting Jules Verne out toward the sun just wouldn't be worth the required fuel and trajectory management.]

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

OneVoice, Frederick MD — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:18:15 GMT

Its great to see another group - even if it is a group of foreign countries - able to send cargo to the space station. Another step forward in the eventual migration of the human race into space.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

fadda eart — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:04:09 GMT

Simplify this conversation by realizing that it has only been a few years since the vast majority of Humans felt that we couldn't possibily mess up Earth's Oceans with a little Human waste...get the idea through yer gourds that Outer Space is your next Ocean...don't start messing it up!

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Derek — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:06:55 GMT

This waste is all the more reason a totally reusable craft is needed. Something like the shuttle was supposed to be. We need "airliner like" access to low earth orbit.

The real question should be, does anyone know of any technologies we are not exploring that would solve this issue? Are there any new types of propulsion out there that we can use?

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Rick S US — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:22:49 GMT

Hey, how 'bout making useful in space as the shell of a new station module instead of sending back to earth? Could that be so hard? No extra fuel necessary!

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:34:11 GMT

"Millions, maybe billions to produce such a spaceship and no parts or pieces can be salvaged or reused?"

'Billions' perhaps in the original research and development to learn *how* to make one. That knowledge and capability didn't burn up, any more than it does with a Russian Progress vehicle.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Frank Glover Rochester, NY — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:41:16 GMT

"...why not fire it towards the sun ..."

That takes far more energy (propellant that could have been other cargo, instead of the small amount needed to de-orbit) than you think. You not only have to get to Earth escape velocity (which would still only put you in a slightly different orbit around the Sun), but *cancel* enough of that solar orbital velocity to fall into the Sun. In fact, it would take less energy to send an object out to Jupiter and do a 'reverse' slingshot that throws you back to the inner solar system (instead of outwards), than to go direct to the Sun.

Why bother?

Even Lunar disposal would be easier, though still not enough to be practical.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:42:27 GMT

"Wow, those are some fascinating images indeed. I guess junking up the ocean in the name of space travel is OK."

Compared to *how* many ships sunk there?

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Kelly, Phoenix, AZ — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:26:11 GMT

About sending it some where besides the earth. People do not understand that it would take a lot of energy to send it anywhere out of the earth's gravity. The moon is still in the Earth's gravity well, so you are talking far beyond that.

The vehicle is still in orbit near the ISS. It would require a large amount of thrust still to leave Earth's orbit from there. If you do not have enough thrust it would still be in the earth's gravity well. This would cause a problem from now on, as it would pose a threat to future missions.

The best thing is always to send it into the nearest gravity well... ie. Earth.

Besides you want mass to come back to where it orginiated. You don't want the Earth to lose that mass. After 100's of years of doing that it could destabilize our orbit... push it a little further out... make the Earth a little cooler. (might be a solution to global warming though! :0) )

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Bruce Mummin — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:30:04 GMT

Why not just dump all space trash on the moon? It's already dead anyway. Out of sight--out of mind.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

PDavis, Memphis TN — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:46:26 GMT

Good grief. I can object to burning it up, since mass in orbit has a value, and it would make sense to simply stockpile these things until someone needs that much mass (say for hardening spy satellites) for a real purpose out there. But the energy costs for sending it anywhere else but in low earth orbit or back down to earth are enormous, far more costly than the entire total for the mission.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Tony, Seattle, WA — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 02:33:45 GMT

There's no need to insult people who express concern about polluting the Earth. Certainly it'd be preferable to fly reuseable vehicles; not everyone knows why that's difficult. We're emerging from an age where noone seemed concerned about the environment: those who are are in the vanguard.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:00:27 GMT

Tony,
Cost and difficulty both go up when you decide to make it reuseable. The increased fuel consumption, production waste, etc. probably cause more pollution than burning it up on reentry. You can't just look at the vehicle and say you want to get rid of that pollution. If your electric car is recharged using power from an unfiltered coal burning power plant ...

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Alberto Sanchez — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:17:01 GMT

It's too bad we can not standardize and reuse these ships. eventually turning them into something habitable or a platform for emergency supplies or shelter at best be used and sent to Moon or mars for the start of the next city...

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Frank Glover Rochester, NY — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:23:27 GMT

"... I can object to burning it up, since mass in orbit has a value..."

How is that? Not all mass in orbit has value. The infrastructure exists on Earth to recycle, recover and reuse stuff, but not in LEO. A hunk of aluminum, wiring, empty propellant tanks in orbit that's done its job, and not designed to return to Earth is essentially orbital debris.

And stuff in *different* orbits (which is almost anything) takes yet more resources to hunt down and rendezvous with...

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 12:50:59 GMT

Brad,
Yours was humor. I can’t decide on Chris R. after you. Is it even possible that he’s serious? The way it’s written seams so, what is written must be a joke. It makes my brain hurt.

A lot of people want a reusable LEO craft. Back to the elevator.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Alan Parkesburg, Pa — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 13:32:02 GMT

Man spends trillions of dollars in space and can't fix things on the planet. Come on back down and lend a hand.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

D.Chandler Tucson, AZ — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 15:03:18 GMT

Everything brought up the gravity well has a cost, and should be considered as a potential resource for use later. We need a robot tug with an ion engine to ferry things to one of the LaGrange points for re-use later. LEO is a junkyard because mission-planners/governments have been thoughtless lazy slobs.
I wish our governments would stop trying to make trailer parks (stations in orbit, wished for bases on the Moon and Mars) and work on a genuine "ship" which would serve as a platform for exploration and research. And I mean self-healing systems technology and closed-loop . Treatments vs. muscular atrophy and de-ossification. And a processing-manufacturing capability which would allow the ship to recover raw materials and effect repairs and expand without any new refinded/processed materials lifted up to it from Earth.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

JJ, NE — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 16:13:58 GMT

Hey, this is all fine and good, but can anyone tell me why we don't just send this stuff to the sun or something like that instead of dumping into our beautiful oceans? I mean, we're just polluting the planet right?

Just joking - I think that question was asked and answered about 45 times!

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Mike Dubyak, Jacksonville, FL — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:14:13 GMT

OMG - read people!
Earth atmospheric reentry = $0.00
Sun disposal = $ billion +
Oort Cloud disposal = $ billions more
Common sense = Priceless

And for those that want to whine about contaminating the oceans with space debris, just try to comprehend the amount of chemical pollution that has probably seeped it's way into the water supply to make the PC and generate the power that is required for you to respond to this article. I am certain you have contributed more to the tainted environment in which we live doing so than the sum of all space programs combined.

Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Guy S. Newell — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 13:21:54 GMT

Why do people want this thing sent to the Sun? What's the point? What's the propblem that would be solved by sending it to the sun? You might as well ask, why bring it down at all? Why not just leave it in orbit? Or, why not let the Chinese shoot it down? They obviously need the target practice.