Out-of-Control Russian Spacecraft - Where Is the Little Red Destruct Button?

news.yahoo.com...

Altogether more than 5,200 lbs. (2,359 kg) of cargo is packed inside Progress 59, including 3,075 lbs. (1,395 kg) of dry cargo, 1,089 lbs. (494 kg) of propellant, 925 lbs. (420 kg) of water and 110 lbs. (50 kg) of compressed gases. The International Space Station is not in any danger of running out of supplies due to the loss of the spacecraft, NASA officials and the station's astronaut crew have said.

Not sure why this list doesn't include something, that at the moment seems very important, A SELF DESTRUCT button...Shouldn't all rockets and Satellites include a SELF DESTRUCT button or some way to blow them up before they hit the Earth's atmosphere...I think common sense should make that a foregone conclusion to any governing space agency.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Blowing something up in the earths upper atmosphere is a very bad idea, small/large pieces of debris would spread out orbiting the Earth creating dangers for future space travel, satellites and the ISS.

Letting it burn up in the atmosphere and let a small piece if any at all hit Earth, is a lot more safer.

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Blowing something up in the earths upper atmosphere is a very bad idea, small/large pieces of debris would spread out orbiting the Earth creating dangers for future space travel, satellites and the ISS.

Letting it burn up in the atmosphere and let a small piece if any at all hit Earth, is a lot more safer.

^ This.

You could potentially damage orbiting satellites, add to the ongoing debris field.

God forbid you hit one of the satellites that have a nuclear powered cores or whatever.

There's a dozen really good reason why we just let stuff fall back to earth.

~Tenth

Should we be filling the sky with all the debris from all the rockets and satellites? In another twenty five years more and countries and businesses will be putting more and more satellites into orbit. Who is responsible for cleaning up that mess? Who is going to pay for the cleanup? It all goes on the taxpayer in deals like this, even if it filters down to higher prices on the things we buy. If you subtracted all the wasted money by big corporations from the cost of the products, foods would be a lot cheaper. I would say a penny or more of every can of coke goes to advertising. another penny goes to sporting events they sponsor. I could go on and on but the rest of their things are probably less than a penny each but they do add up.

And this is just one product.

a reply to: rickymouse

It may well be that the mysterious and partially secret triangles have some very bad environmental side effects. But on the face of it, on a side-by-side comparison with the cost/benefits on that level alone against all of the negative consequences of aircraft and rockets, it seems to me to be a no-brainer.

Hillary Clinton gave it to them to reset but I guess it never worked.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

A relatively small device with a lot of smaller and, importantly, entirely separate items inside, it will/did blossom like a flower as it encounters air resistance on its plunge. Most will burn up.

The Russian spacecraft had already re-entered the atmosphere. Parts of it that didn't disintegrate upon re-entry (if there are any) would have landed in the Pacific Ocean.