[HN Gopher] Space junk: India says object found in Australia is ...
___________________________________________________________________
Space junk: India says object found in Australia is theirs
Author : vinni2
Score : 63 points
Date : 2023-07-31 14:40 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| Scofield67 wrote:
| [flagged]
| samstave wrote:
| Whelp, there is historical precedence ;
|
| " _Britain says everything found in every country they took from
| is Britains_ "
|
| So...
| gdsdfe wrote:
| a space archaeologist ... well that's the first time, I hear such
| thing exists
| kazinator wrote:
| "Dude, it doesn't take a rocket paleontologist to figure out
| that ... "
| sparkie wrote:
| Only takes a redditor to figure it out: https://www.reddit.co
| m/r/space/comments/1515q3w/comment/js6w...
| dv35z wrote:
| You might get a laugh out of this. Cheers.
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I
| bell-cot wrote:
| > There were initially concerns about potentially dangerous
| toxins leaking from the object if it was found to be part of a
| rocket.
|
| From the photo - the object is a cylindrical tank, with a huge
| hole in one badly-damaged end of it. It was adrift at sea long
| enough for barnacles to be growing over much of its surface.
|
| IANARS (not a rocket scientist)...but I'd bet that there are
| absolutely zero carried-in-tanks-on-rockets toxins which are
| barnacle-friendly. Ditto ones which would not have been washed
| away in the first hour of the sea water sloshing in & out of that
| big hole. And IIR, the intersection of two empty sets is also
| empty.
| mlindner wrote:
| IANARS but I play one on the internet. Depending on exactly
| where it came from on the rocket and which rocket it came from
| there could be smaller tanks embedded within larger tanks and
| fuel lines that are still pressurized behind closed valves.
| That wouldn't be known until they confirmed its origin. Finally
| the content of what could be pressurized is some pretty toxic
| and carcinogenic chemicals like nitrogen tetroxide or
| monomethyl hydrazine.
| fit2rule wrote:
| [dead]
| stolen_biscuit wrote:
| Yes in hindsight it's obvious the tank is non-harmful, but when
| it was a complete mystery it's important to do due diligence to
| ensure it is safe.
| rozab wrote:
| It was positively identified in the reddit thread about half
| an hour after it was posted, not sure how the media has
| managed to drag the story out for so long
| mulmen wrote:
| Reddit has been wrong.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| The tank in the photo looks like the second stage
| pressurization tank. If that's the case (I could be wrong), it
| carries helium.
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| > Countries often plan for debris from their launches to land in
| oceans to prevent them damaging people and property.
|
| Is there much thought about the retrieval of these things? It
| seems incredibly short sighted just to litter them on the ocean
| floor..
| kneebonian wrote:
| I'm imaging the rationale is probably that the amount of space
| junk ending up in the ocean is far far far less than the amount
| of terrestrial junk ending up in the ocean.
|
| EDIT:
|
| Not defending the reasoning just saying it's probably what they
| used.
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| Just because most of the windows are smashed, doesn't mean
| it's okay to smash a few more.
|
| Even if it were offset by other marine environment
| investment. Hell, create a trust and drop a 10th of the
| recover cost in each time so that when recovery is cheaper in
| the future, it could be funded by all the compounded money.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| WOrse things:
|
| https://www.treehugger.com/shipwrecks-could-sink-environment...
| srvmshr wrote:
| I am puzzled & maybe someone could throw light:
|
| The canister looks like metal, and isn't airtight anymore. It has
| barnacles on one side, which makes it likely it was probably
| floating, rather than sitting on the seabed.
|
| How did it manage to float so long without sinking? It looks
| structurally compromised from the photograph.
| sawjet wrote:
| It is likely that there are smaller, internal pressurant tanks
| that are sealed and could keep the craft bouyant
| jmholla wrote:
| Maybe it was on the seabed and the barnacles were working their
| way up when it was brought to shore tumultuously? Or maybe it
| was floating and the processes that brought it to shore caused
| that damage?
| asow92 wrote:
| Maybe there's a sequestered, hollowed out part inside keeping
| it afloat?
| justinclift wrote:
| Maybe instead of floating it was half-buried for a while?
| nsenifty wrote:
| Is it really "space junk" if it was meant to fall back into the
| ocean during launch? I thought it meant the junk orbiting earth
| and pose a risk of orbital collisions.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I think it is, yes. Whether or not it was intentionally allowed
| to fall back to earth doesn't make refuse suddenly not refuse.
| nsenifty wrote:
| It is junk, but "space junk" has a very specific meaning [1]
| and this is not it. Pretty much all rocket launches have
| debris designed to fall back down into ocean, some recovered
| and some not. Not only that, but defunct satellites are
| intentionally crashed into the ocean and left there [2].
|
| There is literally nothing special about this part other than
| perhaps it floated and ended up in another country.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_cemetery
| biot wrote:
| Much like how "garbage collection" is industry terminology
| referring to a specific feature of memory management in
| programming languages, "space junk" is also industry
| terminology that's specific in its meaning:
|
| > Space debris (also known as space junk, space pollution,
| space waste, space trash, space garbage, or cosmic debris)
| are defunct human-made objects in space - principally in
| Earth orbit - which no longer serve a useful function.
|
| Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris
|
| If it's no longer in space, it's no longer "space junk".
| mrlonglong wrote:
| Time Australia fined India for littering. NASA paid a fine when
| Skylab crashed in the outback years ago.
| zapdrive wrote:
| It fell in the ocean and drifted towards Australia. So, no,
| Australia has no grounds to fault India. Also, isn't it better
| to let space junk fall to the oceans then let it drift in space
| around Earth for decades?
| syndicatedjelly wrote:
| Has India been dumping trash in Australia for a long time or
| something?
| nineteen999 wrote:
| Sometimes it runs away, and India sends it back again, and we
| are grateful.
| https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-03/puneet-puneet-in-
| custody-in-india-over-2008-hit-run-dean-hofstee/100431778
|
| Please don't bring race into this - this person is trash and
| their nationality is irrelevant.
| [deleted]
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Who mentioned race?
| AverageDude wrote:
| There are more like that.
| Grimburger wrote:
| NASA never paid the fine. On the 30th year anniversary a US
| radio show host organised a fund raising and got the money
| together to pay the $400 off on behalf of the US government.
| ajvsnsdli wrote:
| I did not know that was a thing. Though, maybe I am uninformed
| but I can't think of both how and why this is a thing. First, a
| quick search on ISRO's wiki page it has a handful of launches
| every year, and assuming the chances of the rocket debris
| landing on a particular country is likely single digits a year
| if at all that is, what's the point of a fine, just to make
| money? or is it supposed to incentivize countries to invest
| into research of rocket debris trajectories? Or perhaps deter
| countries from launching rockets? Second, what happens when a
| space agency disputes an incident/fine, who is the final
| authority? What happens on repeat offenses, steeper fines? What
| if the fine is not paid? Is it a problem worth tensions between
| nations with sizable bilateral trade?
| mminer237 wrote:
| They issued a $400 fine as a joke, and NASA never actually
| paid it.
|
| https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/70708/nasas-
| unpaid-400-l...
| midasuni wrote:
| It's the principal. The Skylab fine was $400.
|
| The idea is that an organisation, no matter how large,
| doesn't get to ignore the law.
|
| Alas nasa didn't even pay the fine, probably some form of
| legal reason
| mtmail wrote:
| The ticket was not serious and the local government never
| followed up to collect it.
| https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/34928/did-
| nasa-...
| mrlonglong wrote:
| They didn't pay?
| thwwwk wrote:
| As an American I will consider paying this on behalf of
| NASA if someone can tell me how... $400 is worth the
| amusement
| Someone wrote:
| > assuming the chances of the rocket debris landing on a
| particular country is likely single digits a year if at all
| that is, what's the point of a fine
|
| It's not likely, but debris may land on top of humans, and
| may be large and not only physically, but also chemically
| dangerous.
|
| As to that fine,
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty doesn't
| mention that, but does say:
|
| _"States shall be liable for damage caused by their space
| objects"_
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-31 23:00 UTC)