Apollo Missions

[foofighter15]

I saw a clip the other day that we've all seen. Its from Apollo 13 when they get into space and half of the rocket detaches and drifts off in the other direction.
Its been on my mind all day. What happens to those pieces? Do they just drift off and become part of space? And if so, how far would they be by now as its been about 40 years or so? Do we have any idea?
I had a feeling my trust CP buddies would be able to help me with these thoughts.

[ken0042]

They become part of the junkyard that is currently orbiting the Earth. I forget the exact number, but there's thousands of pieces from the size of a bolt to the size of a bus sitting up there.

Because there is still some atmposhere even at 200 km up, they do eventually slow down and then fall out of orbit, burning up before hitting the ground. Or at least most burn up. Other things (like Skylab for example) crash land on the earth.

I think it's safe to say the only parts of the Apollo missions left in space are the objects orbiting and sitting on the moon.

[Dan02]

float around up there until unless they're close enough that they fall back to earth and burn up in the atmosphere.

[keratosis]

I believe that NASA and the U.S forces(Air Force?) actually
track the larger peaces.
That information has a bearing on shuttle launches etc.

[Stumptown]

Originally Posted by ken0042

They become part of the junkyard that is currently orbiting the Earth. I forget the exact number, but there's thousands of pieces from the size of a bolt to the size of a bus sitting up there.

10,000 cataloged, up to 50,000 total, according to the ESA. Interesting animation of the accumulation of space junk over the years on that page as well.

[foofighter15]

the whole space junk yard thing bothers me. Have we learned nothing? We've polluted this earth to hell, why not keep space free of our crap.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by foofighter15

the whole space junk yard thing bothers me. Have we learned nothing? We've polluted this earth to hell, why not keep space free of our crap.

Because it becomes a navigational hazard for Xenos' invasion fleet. Space junk is the last barrier to an earth wide apocalypse that we haven't seen since the Dinosaurs were wiped out by the great Klingon safari of 5 million B.C.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by foofighter15

the whole space junk yard thing bothers me. Have we learned nothing?.

Yeah it bothers me a bit to, but lets put it into perspective, 10-50k pieces in a area as big as the area they're talking about, is quite literally a win the lottery possibility, probably alot less likely.

For example, in the article they state that they(ESA) alter the orbit of their satelites if the threat is percieved to be above 1 in 10000. I'd be interested in finding out how often they've actually done it, as most satelites have pretty limited reserves of fuel on board, mostly needed for maintaining orbit.

[Frequitude]

I fully support blasting our garbage far into space.

[photon]

Originally Posted by foofighter15

the whole space junk yard thing bothers me. Have we learned nothing? We've polluted this earth to hell, why not keep space free of our crap.

Cost and technology probably. For most missions if you added a requirement that nothing be left behind then the cost would rise or even become impossible with current technology.

[troutman]

Didn't Skylab crash into Australia a few years ago?

[McG]

And remember the russian one that crashed into the nwt a while back?

IIRC, the serious real problem isn't the junk itself, nor the burnup upon re-entry...

its the nuclear fuel on these satellites and other junk and when it falls to earth...it either burns up upon reentry and contaminates the atmosphere...or else it falls to earth and contaminates...well...the earth!

[SebC]

Originally Posted by McG

And remember the russian one that crashed into the nwt a while back?

IIRC, the serious real problem isn't the junk itself, nor the burnup upon re-entry...

its the nuclear fuel on these satellites and other junk and when it falls to earth...it either burns up upon reentry and contaminates the atmosphere...or else it falls to earth and contaminates...well...the earth!

Nuclear fuel? thought they used oxidizers/combustibles.

[foofighter15]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I fully support blasting our garbage far into space.

Until you smell it on the smelloscope

[STeeLy]

Originally Posted by SebC

Nuclear fuel? thought they used oxidizers/combustibles.

Thats what I thought as well, so that they wouldn't pollute the earth as much. This is the first time I've ever heard of satellites using Nuclear Fuel.

[atb]

The European Space Agency has some photos up of items they track orbiting Earth:
http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=...ations&start=1

[photon]

Some satellites use nuclear fuel.. they're mostly the interplanetary ones where solar would be tough, but some orbiting ones do it.

In most cases it's not a full fledged nuclear reactor, it's just nuclear material in a solid that's dense enough to heat up but not enough to melt, and a thermocouple or something to generate the electricity. No moving parts. I think I read they're robust enough to survive a reentry event and be recovered and recycled.

EDIT: These things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiois...tric_generator

[Save Us Sutter]

Originally Posted by atb112

The European Space Agency has some photos up of items they track orbiting Earth:
http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=...ations&start=1

Looks like a lot of Stanley Cups up there with the satellites!

Thanks for the link, I had seen these before but couldn't remember where.