Space junk: India says object found in Australia is theirs | Hacker News Reader

Space junk: India says object found in Australia is theirs

bbc.com

108 pointsvinni266 comments

> 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.

The tank in the photo looks like the second stage pressurization tank. If that's the case (I could be wrong), it carries helium.

I don't think it's a helium tank. A high pressure tank (helium or otherwise) in a rocket is normally a COPV [0]. Those are welded, don't have rivets/bolts, and are wrapped in carbon fiber.

To me it looks like a regular fuel or oxidizer tank.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_overwrapped_pressure...

The pictures of the vessel when close up DO look like it's overwrapped, the rivets around the outside look like theyre from the structure which held the tank rather than the tank itself.

You typically see COPVs attached from the top and bottom with linkages. And a regular tank can be overwrapped in a composite as well.

The top looks like a regular tank dome to me, maybe a common dome.

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.

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.

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

Reddit has been wrong.

Yeah but there are plenty of experts to ask about the single specific claim.

And how many different claims are there?

I didn't look but it would be easy to toss the top three credible claims at them.

But how does a non-expert determine credibility?

Taking their best guess is fine. Or just taking the top three comments that don't seem ridiculous.

In this case the top comment on /r/whatisthisthing is "Looks to be a perfect match for India’s PSLV third stage." with comparison photos, the second-top comment is "Looks like a fuel tank for a rocket of some type.", and the third-top comment is "looks very similar to the Delta IV heavy fuel tank".

It's a nice plausible answer and about as straightforward a question you can get for asking an expert.

It was a rhetorical question.

>IANARS (not a rocket scientist)

The concept of you actually typing this is more interesting than what you posted.

IANARS either, but testing for various known or likely causes of toxicity [or other harms] is generally a good thing to do with an unidentified object, regardless of how likely it is that test comes back positive.

if it was toxic, and nobody had bothered to test it because there were barnacles on it, that'd be pretty dumb.

> I'd bet that there are absolutely zero carried-in-tanks-on-rockets toxins which are barnacle-friendly.

Plenty of rockets have used hydrogen as a fuel, and most rockets carry tanks of oxygen. These would be gone just about as soon as a hole appears in the tank, but the traces would probably be considered barnacle friendly.

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.

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?

Maybe there's a sequestered, hollowed out part inside keeping it afloat?

It is likely that there are smaller, internal pressurant tanks that are sealed and could keep the craft bouyant

Maybe instead of floating it was half-buried for a while?

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.

I think it is, yes. Whether or not it was intentionally allowed to fall back to earth doesn't make refuse suddenly not refuse.

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".

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

Time Australia fined India for littering. NASA paid a fine when Skylab crashed in the outback years ago.

Has India been dumping trash in Australia for a long time or something?

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?

They issued a $400 fine as a joke, and NASA never actually paid it.

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/70708/nasas-unpaid-400-l...

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

The ticket was not serious and the local government never followed up to collect it. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/34928/did-nasa-...

They didn't pay?

As an American I will consider paying this on behalf of NASA if someone can tell me how… $400 is worth the amusement

> In 2009, 30 years after Skylab’s reentry, California radio DJ Scott Barley asked listeners to donate money so they could finally clear NASA’s books. Though the mayor of Esperance told Barley the ticket had been “written off years ago,” he and his listeners cobbled together the $400 and sent it to the shire. For his efforts, Barley was invited to Esperance and received a key to the city.

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/70708/nasas-unpaid-400-l...

> 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”

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?

Eh, Australia can fault the space agency if they want. Probably not reasonable right now. If we intend to increase space activity though, I think it would be fair to expect debris gets cleaned up. It hasn't mattered before as we just weren't that active in space, but with 40,000+ minisats expected to de-orbit continuously from now on maybe it's worth thinking about.

Minisats will likely completely burn up though.

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.

So as part of space research, littering space and ocean is allowed. OKAY.

I understand its part of the launch procedure at this point and I naively thought they eventually retrieve it when it lands in the ocean as SpaceX does/used to.

But from the article it seems, ISRO doesn't care at this point. Their first instinct isn't to get it or request it back as part of their responsibility but to say its upto ASA to decide.

Another thing you don't know is no one else does not even NASA.

And yet the space treaty has made it clear that a) the agency has ownership of those parts b) they are liable for any damages caused and/or should be responsible for it.

It fell in the ocean and then drifted. It's harmless to the ocean life. Better you should worry about the tons of plastic that's endding up in ocean everyday

SpaceX only recovers rockets with a reusable launch profile. They're not recovering the ones that crash into the sea like this, and I think they gave up on making the F9's second stage recoverable in favor of making a new, better launch vehicle. It's pretty much business as usual, in the grand scheme of things a few tons of metal going into the ocean is NBD.

Some rocket parts are made buoyant to make sure they can be recoverable, some are not which are expected to sink to the seabed.

If something surfaces, it can be considered hazardous and the agency which launched it is liable[1] to take responsibility if it causes damages. In this case, no damage happened but not taking responsibility or even attempting to suggest a solution is what I mostly raised my concern about.

[1] https://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_26_2777E.pdf

As a Physicist, I think this is the best explanation of space junk. With subtitles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1REkejAMnNo

Unlike the authorities concerned, a lot more people are salty about littering here for some reason.

> 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..

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.

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.

WOrse things:

https://www.treehugger.com/shipwrecks-could-sink-environment...

If you want to retrieve it, it's probably yours.

Because it doesn't make sense to waste thousands of tons of fuel to recover what is basically metal from the ocean floor. This kind of almost religious view of the environment is exactly the same error behind some incredibly stupid decisions like germany getting rid of their nuclear power plants (and now they are burning coal, genius!)

It doesn’t make sense for the largest polluter to spend money to reduce the pollution they create.

I asked about thought, rather than something definitive like ‘they SHOULD retrieve them.

Likening someone’s question to ‘stupid decisions’ will not help you win friends or influence people.

It is not just money. Wasting fuel has a far more damaging impact on the nature than the negligible impact of having some metal tanks in the bottom of the ocean. It is not like sea water is distilled water.

a space archaeologist ... well that's the first time, I hear such thing exists

"Dude, it doesn't take a rocket paleontologist to figure out that ... "

You might get a laugh out of this. Cheers. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I

Not who you were replying to, but thank you - I'm on the floor laughing :)

Only takes a redditor to figure it out: https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/1515q3w/comment/js6w...

Whelp, there is historical precedence ;

"Britain says everything found in every country they took from is Britains"

So...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com