5,800 Pounds of Batteries Tossed Off the ISS in 2021 Fell to Earth Today (space.com) 36
Space.com describes it as "a nearly 3-ton leftover tossed overboard from the International Space Station" — which crashed back to earth today. One satellite tracker claims to have filmed it passing over the Netherlands...
"A couple minutes later reentry and it would have reached Fort Meyers" in Florida, posted astronomer Jonathan McDowell of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. But instead it re-entered the earth's atmosphere "over the Gulf of Mexico between Cancun and Cuba," Friday afternoon. "This was within the previous prediction window but a little to the northeast of the 'most likely' part of the path."
From Space.com: The multi-ton Exposed Pallet 9 (EP9) was jettisoned from the space station back in March 2021. At the time, it was reported to be the most massive object ever tossed overboard from the International Space Station. Disposing of used or unnecessary equipment in such a way is common practice aboard the space station, as the objects typically burn up harmlessly in Earth's atmosphere.
Ahead of EP9's reentry, the Federal Office for Civil Protection and Disaster Relief, National Warning Center 1 in Bonn, Germany issued this information... "The object is battery packs from the International Space Station. Luminous phenomena or the perception of a sonic boom are possible...." EP9 is loaded with old Nickel-Hydrogen batteries, NASA explained at the time it was jettisoned, also explaining that EP9 has the approximate mass of a large SUV and predicting it would re-enter Earth's atmosphere in two-to-four years.
"A large space object reenters the atmosphere in a natural way approximately once per week," the European Space Agency points out, "with the majority of the associated fragments burning up before reaching the ground.
"Most spacecraft, launch vehicles and operational hardware are designed to limit the risks associated with a reentry."
"A couple minutes later reentry and it would have reached Fort Meyers" in Florida, posted astronomer Jonathan McDowell of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. But instead it re-entered the earth's atmosphere "over the Gulf of Mexico between Cancun and Cuba," Friday afternoon. "This was within the previous prediction window but a little to the northeast of the 'most likely' part of the path."
From Space.com: The multi-ton Exposed Pallet 9 (EP9) was jettisoned from the space station back in March 2021. At the time, it was reported to be the most massive object ever tossed overboard from the International Space Station. Disposing of used or unnecessary equipment in such a way is common practice aboard the space station, as the objects typically burn up harmlessly in Earth's atmosphere.
Ahead of EP9's reentry, the Federal Office for Civil Protection and Disaster Relief, National Warning Center 1 in Bonn, Germany issued this information... "The object is battery packs from the International Space Station. Luminous phenomena or the perception of a sonic boom are possible...." EP9 is loaded with old Nickel-Hydrogen batteries, NASA explained at the time it was jettisoned, also explaining that EP9 has the approximate mass of a large SUV and predicting it would re-enter Earth's atmosphere in two-to-four years.
"A large space object reenters the atmosphere in a natural way approximately once per week," the European Space Agency points out, "with the majority of the associated fragments burning up before reaching the ground.
"Most spacecraft, launch vehicles and operational hardware are designed to limit the risks associated with a reentry."
We're calling (Score:2)
to talk to you about your spacestation's warrantee
Re: (Score:1)
Big chunks of that ship were made in a country where quality is job #17.
Look! Up in the sky! (Score:2)
It's a bird!
It's a plane!
It's... just space junk, never mind...
Question (Score:4, Interesting)
>The total mass of the batteries is estimated at 2.6 metric tonnes, most of which may burn up during the reentry. While some parts may reach the ground, the casualty risk – the likelihood of a person being hit – is very low.
Why not break up this batch into smaller pieces that would be guaranteed to burn up on re-entry? Or is that not feasible for some reason?
Re:Question (Score:5, Informative)
Probably nearly impossible, these are not a bunch of loose AAA cells, they are typically packaged in modules tough enough to take launch vibration and acoustic motion.
People get the wrong idea about spacecraft hardware, it's not all flimsy like an airplane or consumer equipment. A "tough" laptop would fly apart into dust 3 seconds into a typical vibration test. Spacecraft hardware is extremely strong and dense.
Re: (Score:2)
>The total mass of the batteries is estimated at 2.6 metric tonnes, most of which may burn up during the reentry. While some parts may reach the ground, the casualty risk – the likelihood of a person being hit – is very low.
Why not break up this batch into smaller pieces that would be guaranteed to burn up on re-entry? Or is that not feasible for some reason?
Maybe they don't want a "shotgun" effect with multiple projectiles, easier to track and plan trajectory for a single one. Think about air traffic etc.
Re: (Score:2)
These are not your typical batteries. They're Nickel Hydrogen batteries. In a nutshell, they consist of a high pressure enclosure (~500 psi) filled with hydrogen gas, as well as the nickel based electrodes. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] for details.
Definitely not something that's easily broken apart.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not break up this batch into smaller pieces that would be guaranteed to burn up on re-entry? Or is that not feasible for some reason?
How would this be done ? You realize the people on the space station have no gravity :) So per Newton, they hit something with an axe or hammer, they will also fly off somewhere. And they will need to chase tiny pieces and acid drops (batteries) that will be floating everywhere. Never mind what could happen if the miss the junk with the axe of hammer.
Re: (Score:2)
As noted earlier, you would have to hack through a lot of stuff even to get to it. And I assure you that you don't want anyone hacking on it with an axe right next to nickel-hydrogen batteries. Nickel hydrogen batteries are relatively high pressure pressure vessels filled with the lightest gas there is, if you break it open it will create a massive pressure wave.
This stuff falling is just not that dangerous, it happens all the time and has happened since the beginning of the space age.
Re: (Score:2)
Or have a throwing contest during an EVA, let's see who can throw the space junk furthest.
How low is "very low"? (Score:1)
Let's see a ballpark number of any sort. Are we talking struck by lightning levels here, winning the lottery, or much rarer?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you think "one item under under 3 US tons" and "a regular series of 20-metric-ton items" are the same, sure. Most of us are better at understanding differences than that.
too bad (Score:2)
the approximate mass of a large SUV (Score:1, Flamebait)
Anything but the metric system. Fuck that shit.
70% of Earth's Area is Sea (Score:2)
Gotta love euphamisms (Score:4, Interesting)
They call it burning up but in reality its just incineration. If anyone were to suggest incinerating 3 tons of batteries on the ground as a disposal method I doubt they'd get very far but it seems to be ok to do it in the upper atmosphere. Ditto all the other space junk that eventually comes down.
The space industry is filthy and needs to sort its act out.
Re: (Score:2)
They call it burning up but in reality its just incineration.
Don't know what the definition of incineration [thefreedictionary.com] is, do ya?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and? 99% of stuff that re-enters does completely incinerate. When you get a chance try to make a point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Gotta love euphamisms (Score:4, Interesting)
They call it burning up but in reality its just incineration. If anyone were to suggest incinerating 3 tons of batteries on the ground as a disposal method I doubt they'd get very far but it seems to be ok to do it in the upper atmosphere.
44 tonnes of meteoritic material falls on Earth each day, most of it incinerating in the upper atmosphere, and a significant portion of it nickel-iron. Even three tons of batteries is not significant.
https://science.nasa.gov/solar... [nasa.gov]
Nope. (Score:3)
They call it burning up but in reality its just incineration.
"Incineration" is specifically burning something until it's just ash. Re-entry is friction tearing something apart with heat merely being a byproduct.
If anyone were to suggest incinerating 3 tons of batteries on the ground as a disposal method I doubt they'd get very far but it seems to be ok to do it in the upper atmosphere.
There is a good reason for that: on the ground there are many different options for disposal.
The space industry is filthy and needs to sort its act out.
You're not entirely wrong but the amount of debris re-entering orbit is a minuscule pollution problem compared to everything else. Smart people are working on this problem which is why JAXA is testing wooden satellites. If you have any workable suggestion then I'm cert
Re: (Score:2)
5 to 300 tonnes of minerals from space enter Earth's atmosphere naturally every day; get over your ginned up outrage.
Pollution isn't just *that* a thing is emitted; it's about regular influxes, and concentrations in particular areas. Neither of these are applicable here. The "regular influxes" are minute compared to natural sources, and the "area" is "spread out across the entire planet".
Re: (Score:2)
> If anyone were to suggest incinerating 3 tons of batteries on the ground
Nickel isn't very toxic. On the ground it would be worth the effort to recycle.
Re: (Score:2)
There are only three other ways to get rid of something that is currently at the ISS: bring it back to Earth, send it into deep space or send it into the Sun.
All three of these would require considerable expenditures of fuel (with the corresponding pollution) and considerable cost -- and it already cost a *lot* to get that fuel up to the ISS (around $40,000 per pound [businessinsider.com]) in the first place.
Bringing it back with a trip back down from the ISS would still
3ton of batteries falling at the Gulf of Mexico (Score:2)
Friendly reminder to keep your dinosaurs indoors to avoid their second extinction.
Pounds? (Score:2)
Pounds is a weight, not a mass.
Stuff in orbit has mass but no weight.
Re: (Score:2)
The pound is a unit of mass. It's also a unit of force. That's confusing, but not confusing enough, so the foot-pound is a unit of energy while the pound-foot is a unit of torque.