| |
M5WJF > MIR 29.03.01 23:54l 32 Lines 1214 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AF0052M5WJF
Read: GUEST OE7FMI
Subj: Re: Why not up instead of down?
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0GPP<DB0LX<DB0RBS<DB0PSC<DB0GE<LX0PAC<LX0HST<HA3PG<
HA5OB<HA8FY<ON0CK<GB7SXE<GB7STU<GB7NLW<GB7WLR<GB7BOB<GB7OAR<GB7PMB
Sent: 010329/1437Z @:GB7PMB.#28.GBR.EU #:36042 [Minsterley] FBB7.00g25
From: M5WJF@GB7PMB.#28.GBR.EU
To : MIR@WW
ZL1AJ Wrote:
> I have to ask this.....it may have been asked before, but why did the
> MIR structure have to be sent DOWN into the Earth's atmosphere. They
> had to fire rockets to send it down, so why didn't they use the same
> rockets (or a bit bigger ones) to send it out into space? All it is
> doing now is adding to the atmospheric pollution. Cheers.....Ron.
One of the problems with space exploration is the the amount of junk left
orbiting the Earth after each launch, where even microscopic fragments are
travelling at incredible speeds.
Future Launches are always susceptable to collisions with these objects,
so having a redundant space station orbiting at a higher altitude would
only be a source of worry, since other fragments could hit it and create
even more.
The best solution was to bring it down in a controlled fashion, so that it
could burn up in the atmosphere.
In comparison to car pollution, the residual gases of the combustion of a
tiny space station like Mir are insignificant.
73 - Wayne, M5WJF @ GB7PMB
Message timed: 15:28 on 2001-Mar-29
Message sent using WinPack-AGW V6.51/AGWPE V2000.70
TRX Equipment: Pye Europa on 5.5dBW
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
