Russian spacecraft crash would be ‘most toxic falling satellite ever’

“About seven tons (6.4 tonnes) of nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine, which could freeze before ultimately entering, will make it the most toxic falling satellite ever,” he said. “What was billed as the heaviest interplanetary probe ever may become one of the heaviest space derelicts to ever fall back to Earth out of control.”

Wow, let's get November over with please. I want a peacefull December. I wish they would stop sending stuff up there, its not like there is much room left!

www.thestar.com...

reply to post by Jerisa


I have heard of incidents like this.

It's pretty scary that such a small amount of plutonium or whatever is in them can pose such a risk to the whole earth.

Bastards.

reply to post by Jerisa


funny I was just wondering about that hopefully they can get the engines to fire and send it on its way to Mars

No plutonium this time.

Plutonium last time [1966].

Fell on Bolivia, but Moscow and Washington lied about it falling 'safely into the Pacific'.

Yeah, 'bastards' is a pretty fair appellation.

I seem to recall Popular Sci or Mech running articles in the recent past about NASA seriously putting out challenges to develop a space elevator that would give an alternative to the chemical rocket . There has to be other ways than basically lighting a giant tube of explosives to burn slow enough so it's propulsion. Imagine what we could do in space if we had a way to get there that was virtually 100% stable for at least arriving and returning in one piece.

reply to post by Jerisa


It wasn't supposed to stay 'there', it is supposed to go to Mars's moon Phobos, land there, and send back a sample of the moon. It could likely have plutonium as a power source, as Russia is the world's leader in enriching plutonium 238 used for spacecraft, the US purchases all of it's spacecraft plutonium 238 from Russia and hasn't been enriching it for decades.

But I haven't looked into what the probe would be powered by, it could use solar power at Mars. Frankly I don't see any large solar arrays on the spacecraft, so I would assume a few kilos of plutonium is also on board, most assuredly all of it will survive reentry.

OK checked Google and it has artist's renderings with two solar arrays, so scratch the plutonium.

Links for a couple of satellite tracking sitesreply to post by Jerisa


I know right!

I've read that there are over 8000 "obejcts" in earth's atmosphere, including about 965 operational satellites, the rest of that number consisting of dead ones and random space debris.

Combine that with the millions of asteroids, comets etc. in the asteroid belt and that data alone is enough for me.

Strange that I don't ever recall being as informed about them as I am nowadays. It seems the media communication has become more frequent with regards to this topic. Could just be the result of the internet and having information at the click of of keystroke...but how I sometimes wish I could be so perfectly nieve again!!

Links for a couple of satellite tracking sites: Heavens-Above
Info Satellites

"The problem with Russian space exploration has been that people have forgotten the taste of victory. The task of this mission is to restore confidence in our abilities and the importance of the task," Igor Lisov, editor-in-chief of the Russian space journal Novosti Kosmoavtiki (Space News) told Agence France-Presse.

The Phobos-Grunt probe will also deploy a Chinese probe, Yinghuo-1, which will orbit Mars, in addition to other international experiments, including a capsule of microbes from the US Planetary Society, which will test the sustainability of basic lifeforms on the planet.

phobos-grunt-probe-heads-mars-runt-moon

reply to post by Jerisa


Thanks for posting this up, there is also a simple solution to this problem.







Edit:

They have two weeks to try and fire the craft before the on-board batteries run out, plenty of time to fix a software problem or data link, but nothing will fix a hardware problem. I'm not sure it's orbit will last that long though.

NASA defines 122 kilometers for re-entry altitude,

link

leaving the spacecraft in an elliptical, low-Earth orbit (207 by 347 kilometers) with an inclination of 51 degrees.

link

As of 10:04 UTC today (Sept. 21, UARS) orbit was nearly circular and only 195 by 209 kilometers in altitude. UARS, plunged through the atmosphere sometime between 11:23 p.m. EDT (0323 Sept. 24 GMT) on Friday (Sept. 23), and 1:09 a.m. EDT (0509 GMT) Saturday (Sept. 24), NASA officials said.

Wouldn't it be ironic if it fell on Iran?

reply to post by Jerisa


Am I the only one that finds this timing rather interesting with the whole yu-55? Please tell me you don't find this coincidence interesting.

That is not the chief problem: Suppose we give a thought to all of those toxic fumes dispelled each time a large rocket of any type blasts off. Those rocket fuel chemicals found in water all over the US didn't come from crashing satellites. They came from exhaust plumes.

Several different fuel combinations have been used in heavy lift launch vehicles. The earliest ones were simply liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, which, when combined, produces a very significant amount of thrust, and whose only combustion byproducts are heat and water vapor. This approach was used for the upper stages of the Saturn V, and is still used for the main engines on some HLLVs, such as the Ariane 5, Delta IV and the Space Shuttle. It is also often used for upper-stage motors, due to its high specific impulse.

The advantages of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen include the largest thrust to mass ratio (which equates to the highest specific impulse), and the absence of any toxic byproducts.

Other fuel options include those used by solid-fuel rockets, combinations of various liquid fuels such as RP-1 and liquid oxygen as used in the Atlas 5 first stage

The propellant mixture in each SRB motor consists of ammonium perchlorate (oxidizer, 69.6% by weight), aluminium (fuel, 16%), iron oxide (a catalyst, 0.4%), a polymer (such as PBAN or HTPB, serving as a binder that holds the mixture together and acting as secondary fuel, 12.04%), and an epoxy curing agent (1.96%). This propellant is commonly referred to as Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant, or simply APCP.

Falcon 9 is a rocket-powered spaceflight launch system designed and manufactured by SpaceX. Both stages of its two-stage-to-orbit vehicle use liquid oxygen (LOX) and rocket-grade kerosene (RP-1) propellants.

Hypergolic fuels, such as unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide are reserved for upper stage rockets well above the atmosphere and beyond.

Even one heavy lift launch a day throughout the world wont equal a day in Los Angeles of toxic auto exhaust put into the atmosphere.

That ought to be enough referencing, all found on Wiki. One is free to research the fuels used in heavy lift rockets today with individual searches. I think you'll find less O H fuel used by foreign space agencies though.

Long March 1's 1st and 2nd stage uses HNO3 and UDMH propellants, and its upper stage use a spin-stabilized solid rocket engine.
Long March 2, Long March 3, Long March 4, the main stages and associated liquid rocket boosters use dinitrogen tetroxide as the oxidizing agent and UDMH as the fuel.

Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) (1,1-Dimethylhydrazine) is a toxic volatile hygroscopic clear liquid, with a sharp, fishy, ammoniacal smell typical for organic amines. It turns yellowish on exposure to air and absorbs oxygen and carbon dioxide. It mixes completely with water, ethanol, and kerosene.

Nitric acid (HNO3), also known as aqua fortis and spirit of nitre, is a highly corrosive and toxic strong acid.
Colorless when pure, older samples tend to acquire a yellow cast due to the accumulation of oxides of nitrogen. If the solution contains more than 86% nitric acid, it is referred to as fuming nitric acid.

Russian heavy lift always favored rocket grade kerosine, a highly refined petroleum and oxygen mix RP-1/LOX and other exotic fuels also used by the Chinese mentioned above.

Originally posted by subject1145
reply to post by Jerisa

 

Am I the only one that finds this timing rather interesting with the whole yu-55? Please tell me you don't find this coincidence interesting.

Why because YU-55 passed with no problems so you are looking to find one where none exist?

reply to post by Illustronic



Not so happy about this:

Hydrazine is highly toxic and dangerously unstable, especially in the anhydrous form. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Symptoms of acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of hydrazine may include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat, dizziness, headache, nausea, pulmonary edema, seizures, coma in humans. Acute exposure can also damage the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system. The liquid is corrosive and may produce dermatitis from skin contact in humans and animals. Effects to the lungs, liver, spleen, and thyroid have been reported in animals chronically exposed to hydrazine via inhalation. Increased incidences of lung, nasal cavity, and liver tumors have been observed in rodents exposed to hydrazine.[30] Limit tests for hydrazine in pharmaceuticals suggest that it should be in the low ppm range.[31] Hydrazine may also cause steatosis.[32] At least one human is known to have died, after 6 months of sublethal exposure to hydrazine hydrate.[33] On February 21, 2008, the United States government destroyed the disabled spy satellite USA 193 with a sea-launched missile, reportedly due to the potential danger of a hydrazine release if it re-entered the Earth's atmosphere intact.[34]

Or this for that matter:

On 24 July 1975, NTO poisoning nearly killed the three U.S. astronauts on board the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project during its final descent. This was due to a switch left in the wrong position, which allowed NTO fumes to vent out of the Apollo spacecraft then back in through the cabin air intake from the outside air after the external vents were opened. One crewmember lost consciousness during descent. Upon landing, the crew was hospitalized 14 days for chemical-induced pneumonia and edema.[4]

My question is what would the fallout be over a large area?

reply to post by Jerisa


the dose makes the poison

and

the solution to pollution is dilution : its all about concentration levels.

released inside a tin can = not so much
released into the entire atmosphere = not as bad

reply to post by Illustronic


As of this morning they said it was in decay. I am assuming that does not bode well for the probe.