I know this was recently discussed.  I don’t know if this is the same
article or not.  thought it would be interest.

Bruce


A news article has been sent to you by: brucesherman@... courtesy
of myEarthLink News

Space junk littering orbit; might need cleaning up
http://my.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20110901/e53c3042-e474-426c-9760-f2a9c46\
61857

=============================================================

myEarthLink News
http://my.earthlink.net/channel/NEWS

Hi All,

The 'Space junk' issue and UFO "Conflict" parallel just gets more and more
amazing.

Please see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14757926

Regards,

Griff

Hi Griff,

Funnily enough I just mentioned that on the Universe Today site:

http://www.universetoday.com/88595/space-debris-problem-getting-worse-new-report\
-says/#comments

I love that site and visit it every day.

Cheers,
--
Rob

>-----Original Message-----
>From: SHADO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SHADO@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
>griffwason
>Sent: 02 September 2011 09:40
>To: SHADO@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [SHADO] ...and the space junk issue gets worse and worse...
>
>Hi All,
>
>The 'Space junk' issue and UFO "Conflict" parallel just gets more and
>more amazing.
>
>Please see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14757926
>
>Regards,
>
>Griff
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 23:27:20 +0100
James Gibbon <jg@...> wrote:

>
>
> I finally got round to watching Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy -
> the BBC's dramatisation of Le Carre's novel, first broadcast in
> 1979.
>
> A very interesting piece of drama with some virtuoso
> performances from several actors, especially Beryl Reid, Alec
> Guinness and Terence Rigby. But it was nice to see George
> holding his own in that company, albeit in a smallish part. I
> definitely felt that his acting was a bit more natural than in
> UFO.
>

Started watching the sequel, 'Smiley's People', last night - and
Vladek Sheybal is in it. Ten years older, hair a little thinner
and slightly unwell-looking - but just as intense.

James

it seems to me that if there was someway to just get a rocket up there and maybe
a wildcat steering program, that a series of mass collections would begin from
the smash ups and the clumps of debries would start becoming large enough to
burn up on re-entry. i think maybe 30 ''wildcat'' missles to start the 'billard
break'' condition would be enough to start that.
jim

From: "Hemmings, Rob K." <rkh@...>
To: "'SHADO@yahoogroups.com'" <SHADO@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2011 2:54 AM
Subject: RE: [SHADO] ...and the space junk issue gets worse and worse...


 
Hi Griff,

Funnily enough I just mentioned that on the Universe Today site:

http://www.universetoday.com/88595/space-debris-problem-getting-worse-new-report\
-says/#comments

I love that site and visit it every day.

Cheers,
--
Rob

>-----Original Message-----
>From: SHADO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SHADO@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
>griffwason
>Sent: 02 September 2011 09:40
>To: SHADO@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [SHADO] ...and the space junk issue gets worse and worse...
>
>Hi All,
>
>The 'Space junk' issue and UFO "Conflict" parallel just gets more and
>more amazing.
>
>Please see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14757926
>
>Regards,
>
>Griff
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gonna step up the geek here

1960's Japanime solution: Send Astro-Boy into space with some wild new
attachment to suck up the debris & then battle the giant robot that's creating
it.  Problem solved everyone gets a moral lecture on being "green".

1970's Saturday morning cartoon solution: Launch a ship into space armed with a
gi-normous magnet.  That could collect the debris & then fire off into the sun. 
Cool unlikely explosion at the end.

1990's Bruce Willis solution:  Launch a ship into space and put very powerful
explosive charges on each piece of debris.  Blow the stuff to a harmless ash
that can be disintegrated by the Earth's atmosphere.  Very flashy, crew dies,
Earth saved.

2000's Metal eating plague solution:  Secret government agency launches metal
eating nano-bots that clear the debris, they evolve and become sentient and then
come down to Earth and begin an apocalyptic terror (ala Gort & the remake of The
Day the Earth Stood Still).

Just brain storming;
Matt


--- In SHADO@yahoogroups.com, "." <aquaboi@...> wrote:
>
> it seems to me that if there was someway to just get a rocket up there and
maybe a wildcat steering program, that a series of mass collections would begin
from the smash ups and the clumps of debries would start becoming large enough
to burn up on re-entry. i think maybe 30 ''wildcat'' missles to start the
'billard break'' condition would be enough to start that.
> jim
>
> From: "Hemmings, Rob K." <rkh@...>
> To: "'SHADO@yahoogroups.com'" <SHADO@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2011 2:54 AM
> Subject: RE: [SHADO] ...and the space junk issue gets worse and worse...
>
>
>  
> Hi Griff,
>
> Funnily enough I just mentioned that on the Universe Today site:
>
>
http://www.universetoday.com/88595/space-debris-problem-getting-worse-new-report\
-says/#comments
>
> I love that site and visit it every day.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Rob
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: SHADO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SHADO@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> >griffwason
> >Sent: 02 September 2011 09:40
> >To: SHADO@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [SHADO] ...and the space junk issue gets worse and worse...
> >
> >Hi All,
> >
> >The 'Space junk' issue and UFO "Conflict" parallel just gets more and
> >more amazing.
> >
> >Please see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14757926
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Griff
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hi all,

So, did anyone here attend the UFO panel at Dragon*Con this weekend?
Anything to report?

Marc

most of the space debris isnt magnetic. to avoid static  charges.
but somethng of a great mass would attract them, maybe a balloon filled with
water. then i would cluster and fall  to earth harmlessly except for short term
fireballs..
jim

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi all,

The September Issue of the Ed Straker Herald is out, one of the richest we
managed to bring to you so far. Please enjoy...

Stories:

Abandoned
Novices
His Last Desire
Dragon's Challenge-Herself
A Conversation Piece II
Triumph
Visitation Rights

Serials:

What the Blazes... ? (adult)
Shades (slash)
The Sign of Aquarius
Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons: Crisis
Thunderbirds: Shot in the Dark
Hefted - The Shepherd

Articles:

Ed Straker: The Man and His Inadequacies
+ more articles midmonth

Columns:

Review of The Things We Never Said

...also Art, Models, Photos, Starsigns by Straker, Ask Dr. Jackson.

And we have scheduled updates to the articles and columns for mid-month, as well
as new instalments of all serials (weekly and biweekly).

Have fun reading and please pay attention to the warning tags, there are a few
possibly triggering topics covered.

If you want to get updates hot off the press so to speak, we are on Facebook and
Twitter:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Ed-Straker-Herald-SHADOpedia/162783213787031
http://twitter.com/#!/EdStrakerHerald

Please have fun reading and browsing,

An

http://edstraker.net
http://shadopedia.com

On Sat, 3 Sep 2011 18:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
"." <aquaboi@...> wrote:

> most of the space debris isnt magnetic. to avoid static
> charges. but somethng of a great mass would attract them, maybe
> a balloon filled with water. then i would cluster and fall  to
> earth harmlessly except for short term fireballs.. jim
>

That would have to be a very, very big balloon indeed - with at
least the surface area of a small country, I think.

Maybe even a small planet. I mean, I know my orbital mechanics is a bit
rusty, but as I recall there IS a large gravitational body nearby - Earth
(not to mention the Moon). The real problem is that all these objects have
pretty high inertial energy and momentum that keeps them from falling out of
orbit in a reasonable time.



   _____

From: SHADO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SHADO@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
James Gibbon
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 7:54 AM
To: SHADO@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [SHADO] Re: ...and the space junk issue gets worse and worse...





On Sat, 3 Sep 2011 18:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
"." <aquaboi@... <mailto:aquaboi%40sbcglobal.net> > wrote:

> most of the space debris isnt magnetic. to avoid static
> charges. but somethng of a great mass would attract them, maybe
> a balloon filled with water. then i would cluster and fall  to
> earth harmlessly except for short term fireballs.. jim
>

That would have to be a very, very big balloon indeed - with at
least the surface area of a small country, I think.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi,

How about this...

According to NASA, the equivalent mass of twice the ISS has had to be moved to
avoid potential collisions in earth orbit! Space junk means everything from
rocket upper stages weighing several tons down to the odd spanner lost in space
by space-walking astro- or cosmonauts. Friction and gravity will eventually
bring all the space junk back to earth, but will take centuries.

What's the solution? It won't be easy.  We can't shoot it down, because even if
we are accurate enough to hit the junk all we are likely to accomplish is
blasting it into lots more smaller pieces that will need tracking.  We could
shoot it with high-powered lasers, but unless we were able to vaporize the
debris completely, all we'd be doing is boring very nice holes in it. No, we
have to gather the stuff and bring it back to Earth.  But how?

Space junk collector: a very fine net to capture the debris and hold it. The net
could be built from kevlar or carbon nanotubes.  Nanotubes have the highest
strength-to-weight ratio of any material and would allow  for a very large, very
light weight net.  Our point here is to make the net light rather than strong,
since our capture speeds will be low and the lack of gravity ought to make it
easy to keep the junk tethered together.  The point of making it strong, then,
is so it can be light enough to be big enough to maybe gather all the junk — all
18,000 pieces — into a single mass.

Launch collector into an inclined polar orbit generally higher than the space
junk to be harvested.  The polar orbit will ensure that eventually the collector
will go over every spot on the Earth as the planet rotates below, but it also
means the collector will eventually cross the path of every piece of space junk.

Here's where we need an algorithm and a honking big computer, because this is a
3-D geometry problem with more than 18,000 variables.  Our algorithm determines
the most efficient path to use for gathering all 18,000 pieces of space junk. It
would start in a high orbit, above the space junk, because we could trade that
altitude for speed as needed, simply by flying lower, trading potential energy
for kinetic.
Dragging the collector behind a little unmanned spacecraft would be to go past
each piece of junk in such a way that it not only lodges permanently in the
collector, but that doing so adds kinetic energy (hitting at shallow angles to
essentially tack like a sailboat off the debris). It wouldn't always be
possible, of course, to gain energy from each encounter, but that's why it would
need to start in a higher orbit, so as energy is inevitably lost it can be
replenished by moving to a lower orbit.

It would logically start with smaller bits of space junk so the net would gain
mass steadily over time, then do the same again at each lower altitude. 
Eventually the collector would have corralled hundreds of tons of debris,
carrying it down into the atmosphere where atmospheric friction would eventually
burn it all up in a spectacular visual display that would create a thin ring of
fire all around the Earth.

Crazy idea, sure, but it could work. Small to big, high to low, all it would
take is time.  How much time?  If the collector orbits every 90 minutes and it
takes an average of a dozen orbits to set up the capture of each piece of space
junk, that's 18,000 * 90 * 12  = 19.4 million minutes or 36.9 years to get it
all.

Mmm... that's about how long it took to put all that junk up there in the first
place.

G

there is another way, a material of somekind could be sprayed onto the junk, in
bombs or piece by peice, then the stuff would either collide and assemble into
larger masses, or be pulled with a magnet attracted by the magnetic material
coating on the junk,
i would assume that standard bombs would work, even just steam bombs to billard
break them into colliding into each other and then allow the peices to fall into
re-entry.
jim

From: griffwason <griff@...>
To: SHADO@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 8:08 AM
Subject: [SHADO] Re: ...and the space junk issue gets worse and worse...


 
Hi,

How about this...

According to NASA, the equivalent mass of twice the ISS has had to be moved to
avoid potential collisions in earth orbit! Space junk means everything from
rocket upper stages weighing several tons down to the odd spanner lost in space
by space-walking astro- or cosmonauts. Friction and gravity will eventually
bring all the space junk back to earth, but will take centuries.

What's the solution? It won't be easy. We can't shoot it down, because even if
we are accurate enough to hit the junk all we are likely to accomplish is
blasting it into lots more smaller pieces that will need tracking. We could
shoot it with high-powered lasers, but unless we were able to vaporize the
debris completely, all we'd be doing is boring very nice holes in it. No, we
have to gather the stuff and bring it back to Earth. But how?

Space junk collector: a very fine net to capture the debris and hold it. The net
could be built from kevlar or carbon nanotubes. Nanotubes have the highest
strength-to-weight ratio of any material and would allow for a very large, very
light weight net. Our point here is to make the net light rather than strong,
since our capture speeds will be low and the lack of gravity ought to make it
easy to keep the junk tethered together. The point of making it strong, then, is
so it can be light enough to be big enough to maybe gather all the junk — all
18,000 pieces — into a single mass.

Launch collector into an inclined polar orbit generally higher than the space
junk to be harvested. The polar orbit will ensure that eventually the collector
will go over every spot on the Earth as the planet rotates below, but it also
means the collector will eventually cross the path of every piece of space junk.

Here's where we need an algorithm and a honking big computer, because this is a
3-D geometry problem with more than 18,000 variables. Our algorithm determines
the most efficient path to use for gathering all 18,000 pieces of space junk. It
would start in a high orbit, above the space junk, because we could trade that
altitude for speed as needed, simply by flying lower, trading potential energy
for kinetic.
Dragging the collector behind a little unmanned spacecraft would be to go past
each piece of junk in such a way that it not only lodges permanently in the
collector, but that doing so adds kinetic energy (hitting at shallow angles to
essentially tack like a sailboat off the debris). It wouldn't always be
possible, of course, to gain energy from each encounter, but that's why it would
need to start in a higher orbit, so as energy is inevitably lost it can be
replenished by moving to a lower orbit.

It would logically start with smaller bits of space junk so the net would gain
mass steadily over time, then do the same again at each lower altitude.
Eventually the collector would have corralled hundreds of tons of debris,
carrying it down into the atmosphere where atmospheric friction would eventually
burn it all up in a spectacular visual display that would create a thin ring of
fire all around the Earth.

Crazy idea, sure, but it could work. Small to big, high to low, all it would
take is time. How much time? If the collector orbits every 90 minutes and it
takes an average of a dozen orbits to set up the capture of each piece of space
junk, that's 18,000 * 90 * 12 = 19.4 million minutes or 36.9 years to get it
all.

Mmm... that's about how long it took to put all that junk up there in the first
place.

G




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

it makes a nice shield from high energy particles and light though.
jim

From: Deborah Rorabaugh <momkat@...>
To: SHADO@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 8:04 AM
Subject: RE: [SHADO] Re: ...and the space junk issue gets worse and worse...


 
Maybe even a small planet. I mean, I know my orbital mechanics is a bit
rusty, but as I recall there IS a large gravitational body nearby - Earth
(not to mention the Moon). The real problem is that all these objects have
pretty high inertial energy and momentum that keeps them from falling out of
orbit in a reasonable time.

_____

From: SHADO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SHADO@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
James Gibbon
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 7:54 AM
To: SHADO@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [SHADO] Re: ...and the space junk issue gets worse and worse...

On Sat, 3 Sep 2011 18:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
"." <aquaboi@... <mailto:aquaboi%40sbcglobal.net> > wrote:

> most of the space debris isnt magnetic. to avoid static
> charges. but somethng of a great mass would attract them, maybe
> a balloon filled with water. then i would cluster and fall to
> earth harmlessly except for short term fireballs.. jim
>

That would have to be a very, very big balloon indeed - with at
least the surface area of a small country, I think.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I blame it all on James L. Henderson! :)

It would be best if their large net were covered in a sticky glue (think
of it like a giant spider web) as I can see debris 'bouncing' off it (and
then having a slightly different orbit, adding to the issues.)
However, I don't think that idea will work - imagine the problems of
unfurling a large sticky net and what would happen if it got tangled!

I like Jim's idea of shooting it with steam - that would instantly turn
into tiny ice particles;  An accurate stream of ice particles fired for
long enough would impart enough momemtum to de-orbit any size/mass of
debris without causing problems in itself.
Not easy though as the craft providing the steam-ice-jet itself will
produce thrust in the opposite direction on the garbage-collector, so
that would need counteracting (so more fuel needed.)

The easy answer:  Henderson tells Straker to "just deal with it!" :o)

Cheers,
--
Rob


>-----Original Message-----
>From: SHADO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SHADO@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
>griffwason
>Sent: 06 September 2011 16:08
>To: SHADO@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [SHADO] Re: ...and the space junk issue gets worse and worse...
>
>Hi,
>
>How about this...
>
>According to NASA, the equivalent mass of twice the ISS has had to be
>moved to avoid potential collisions in earth orbit! Space junk means
>everything from rocket upper stages weighing several tons down to the
>odd spanner lost in space by space-walking astro- or cosmonauts.
>Friction and gravity will eventually bring all the space junk back to
>earth, but will take centuries.
>
>What's the solution? It won't be easy.  We can't shoot it down, because
>even if we are accurate enough to hit the junk all we are likely to
>accomplish is blasting it into lots more smaller pieces that will need
>tracking.  We could shoot it with high-powered lasers, but unless we
>were able to vaporize the debris completely, all we'd be doing is boring
>very nice holes in it. No, we have to gather the stuff and bring it back
>to Earth.  But how?
>
>Space junk collector: a very fine net to capture the debris and hold it.
>The net could be built from kevlar or carbon nanotubes.  Nanotubes have
>the highest strength-to-weight ratio of any material and would allow
>for a very large, very light weight net.  Our point here is to make the
>net light rather than strong, since our capture speeds will be low and
>the lack of gravity ought to make it easy to keep the junk tethered
>together.  The point of making it strong, then, is so it can be light
>enough to be big enough to maybe gather all the junk - all 18,000 pieces
>- into a single mass.
>
>Launch collector into an inclined polar orbit generally higher than the
>space junk to be harvested.  The polar orbit will ensure that eventually
>the collector will go over every spot on the Earth as the planet rotates
>below, but it also means the collector will eventually cross the path of
>every piece of space junk.
>
>Here's where we need an algorithm and a honking big computer, because
>this is a 3-D geometry problem with more than 18,000 variables.  Our
>algorithm determines the most efficient path to use for gathering all
>18,000 pieces of space junk. It would start in a high orbit, above the
>space junk, because we could trade that altitude for speed as needed,
>simply by flying lower, trading potential energy for kinetic.
>Dragging the collector behind a little unmanned spacecraft would be to
>go past each piece of junk in such a way that it not only lodges
>permanently in the collector, but that doing so adds kinetic energy
>(hitting at shallow angles to essentially tack like a sailboat off the
>debris). It wouldn't always be possible, of course, to gain energy from
>each encounter, but that's why it would need to start in a higher orbit,
>so as energy is inevitably lost it can be replenished by moving to a
>lower orbit.
>
>It would logically start with smaller bits of space junk so the net
>would gain mass steadily over time, then do the same again at each lower
>altitude.  Eventually the collector would have corralled hundreds of
>tons of debris, carrying it down into the atmosphere where atmospheric
>friction would eventually burn it all up in a spectacular visual display
>that would create a thin ring of fire all around the Earth.
>
>Crazy idea, sure, but it could work. Small to big, high to low, all it
>would take is time.  How much time?  If the collector orbits every 90
>minutes and it takes an average of a dozen orbits to set up the capture
>of each piece of space junk, that's 18,000 * 90 * 12  = 19.4 million
>minutes or 36.9 years to get it all.
>
>Mmm... that's about how long it took to put all that junk up there in
>the first place.
>
>G
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Hi,

Yes, I do agree the idea was 'off the wall', but well, it was just an idea...

I do think though, that from now on it should be mandatory that ANY
company/nation launching vehicles into space should be compelled to provide a
verifiable mechanism for all expendable components/sections of the spacecraft to
de-orbit as part of their design.

Also, the spacecraft themselves should be designed so that they are capable of
destroying themselves once their mission is complete, either by retrograding
their orbit to burn up, or by changing their orbits to be captured and
eventually destroyed in another planetary body (sun, planet, etc.)

Regards, G

PS. Yeah, Henderson... just deal with the problem!

PPS. Maybe Henderson's secret plan is to put so much space debris in orbit that
it is itself a deterrent to the aliens or they would collide with and then are
destroyed before they get to earth!

PPPS. I can see Henderson and Jackson plotting to put a HUGE dump up their
whilst Commander Straker is away on Moonbase. Don't think that would solve their
problems though... I think Commander Straker would get on just fine up there.

Any and all ideas are good - do NASA have somewhere they can be submitted?

It is not an easy problem and certainly does need to be solved.  It will
probably be an 'off the wall' idea which is eventually chosen.

I agree with the requirement for all future spacecraft/satellites etc to be
launched with a failsafe "de-orbit device" built-in.  With so many of them
being military in origin though, I've no idea how that could be regulated!

One irony is that the space shuttle was the ideal craft for this sort of
thing.  It should have been replaced with an updated version, period.

Cheers,
--
Rob


>-----Original Message-----
>From: SHADO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SHADO@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
>griffwason
>Sent: 07 September 2011 13:09
>To: SHADO@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [SHADO] Re: ...and the space junk issue gets worse and worse...
>
>Hi,
>
>Yes, I do agree the idea was 'off the wall', but well, it was just an
>idea...
>
>I do think though, that from now on it should be mandatory that ANY
>company/nation launching vehicles into space should be compelled to
>provide a verifiable mechanism for all expendable components/sections of
>the spacecraft to de-orbit as part of their design.
>
>Also, the spacecraft themselves should be designed so that they are
>capable of destroying themselves once their mission is complete, either
>by retrograding their orbit to burn up, or by changing their orbits to
>be captured and eventually destroyed in another planetary body (sun,
>planet, etc.)
>
>Regards, G
>
>PS. Yeah, Henderson... just deal with the problem!
>
>PPS. Maybe Henderson's secret plan is to put so much space debris in
>orbit that it is itself a deterrent to the aliens or they would collide
>with and then are destroyed before they get to earth!
>
>PPPS. I can see Henderson and Jackson plotting to put a HUGE dump up
>their whilst Commander Straker is away on Moonbase. Don't think that
>would solve their problems though... I think Commander Straker would get
>on just fine up there.

the command module would have to fire mini- missles at the discarded space junk
after burn out. the heat involved in the fireing of the stages is too great for
a self destruct to function after.
i think what you are asking for really is a 'quark' style garbage scow that goes
around collecting junk.
jim

From: griffwason <griff@...>
To: SHADO@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2011 5:08 AM
Subject: [SHADO] Re: ...and the space junk issue gets worse and worse...


 
Hi,

Yes, I do agree the idea was 'off the wall', but well, it was just an idea...

I do think though, that from now on it should be mandatory that ANY
company/nation launching vehicles into space should be compelled to provide a
verifiable mechanism for all expendable components/sections of the spacecraft to
de-orbit as part of their design.

Also, the spacecraft themselves should be designed so that they are capable of
destroying themselves once their mission is complete, either by retrograding
their orbit to burn up, or by changing their orbits to be captured and
eventually destroyed in another planetary body (sun, planet, etc.)

Regards, G

PS. Yeah, Henderson... just deal with the problem!

PPS. Maybe Henderson's secret plan is to put so much space debris in orbit that
it is itself a deterrent to the aliens or they would collide with and then are
destroyed before they get to earth!

PPPS. I can see Henderson and Jackson plotting to put a HUGE dump up their
whilst Commander Straker is away on Moonbase. Don't think that would solve their
problems though... I think Commander Straker would get on just fine up there.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

i was thinking more of ''steam bombs'' that would clear an area, colliding any
junk into each other, and like a billiard break, knock a few into burn up
re-entry. the actual missles used to deliver the bombs could explode and solve
the more junk issue. since nitroglyerine leaves almost no residue, only carbon
would be delivered to earth in small amounts over time.
jim


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

from what i hear is that nasa is going to devote thier defense satillites,
whatever they claim to be, and use those weapons to destroy or deflect space
junk. when? i have no idea/
 
i went to the nasa website, nasa.gov, and submitted a solution to the anti-
matter engine that they have been budgeted for since 1973, but cannot use due to
the extreeme heat it generates melts the thruster bell off and makes the entire
engine useless-
and that was to make mini engines that melt away,
kind of like 2001's discovery,
but the entire assemble melts away single file as used.
they emailed me back with a personal message saying,
''great idea! but thats not was was approved in the budget, thanks anyway.'
 so now we see what the real problem is, and that, is this;
 
there needs to be a budget steering commitee to re-direct funds from non-active
plans to prototype operations that can be created immediately and are currently
useful.
 
jim


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm afraid that SHADO's Space Junk solution would actually only make the problem
worse.
 
FAR worse.
 
The problem with space junk is not the big objects up there, it's the little
tiny ones that are hard to track on radar.
A fleck of paint put a scar in one of the Space Shuttle's windows.  Something as
small as a bolt head could destroy
the space station when it's travelling at 17kilometers per second.
 
Now, say when you've got something big, like the 3rd stage of Apollo 8 (I think
that's what it was in the UFO episode)
You could either leave it where it is, nice, big easy to track, and in a very
predictable orbit, or blow it into a million pieces
which are small, illusive and each one just as deadly to satelites and
spacecraft.  Oh, and now they're scattered all over Earth orbit.
 
Trust me, the solution to getting rid of space junk is NOT with explosives.

Scott Kellogg
21st Century Fox: The future's so bright, you gotta wear shades
http://techfox.keenspace.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi all,

there are new updates to the Herald of the serials and a nice article by Anthony
Taylor about Dragon*Con 2011, including photos, hot off the press.

Enjoy!

Cheers

An

http://edstraker.net
http://shadopedia.com

Scifi Modeller Volume 23 will be in stock in a couple weeks. This one is going
to be a must have issue for any Gerry Anderson Fan. Be sure to
check it out

http://fabgearusa.com/sci_fi_fantasy_modeller_23.html

Keep watching the site there are 35 new items i have yet to put on the site so
it will be updating every day

Thanks as always
Rob
Fabgearusa.com


Keep watching the site there are 35 new items i have yet to put on the site so
it will be updating every day

Thanks as always
Rob
Fabgearusa.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

New: Bloopers, Goofs, and <http://www.shadolibrary.org/eps/bloopers.shtml>
Other Blunders - A Viewers Guide to UFO Bloopers



BTW, if any of you know of any that have been missed, feel free to let me
know.

Deb



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello!  I've written another UFO time travel story!  But this time, it's a
little different.  It's called "The First Rule of Time Travel" and you can find
it here:
http://denisefelt.weebly.com/the-first-rule.html

The tagline for this story is: "All hell breaks loose when Commander Straker
gets a gift from a secret admirer."

This story is not finished, but will be written in 5 parts (each one short story
length.)  The first part is done, which is Virginia's Adventure.  I hope you'll
enjoy reading it as much as I did writing it!

Yours,
Denise

Hi,

The section in the middle of this video animation looks uncannily like the space
dumper sequence in UFO "The Long Sleep".

http://www.spacex.com/assets/video/spacex-rtls-green.mp4

Guess Gerry and the guys got there first again...

This is going to be real though, Elon Musk at SpaceX will make this reality in
the very near future :)

Regards,

Griff

well, i figured out how one would work, however the ufos would be earth based,
and use air to get the hydrogen to steam and spin like a propellor. as soon as
the uranium stripes on the bottom heat up the furnace, the micro hydrogen is
steamed out and the tilted struts act like a prop. blasts of superheated
hydrogen thrusters steer it, and the cabin up top, (lit green of course)is
housed in a free spin track.
my only question before i start drawing this thing out for good, is do you, the
audience, prefer a glass shell, or a metal shell?
jim

There is a new CD with the UFO Main Tehe by Barry Gray on it:

http://www.screenarchives.com/title_detail.cfm/ID/16351/SCIENCE-FICTION%E2%80%99\
S-FINEST-VOLUME-1/

All the best,
Branko


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've heard it - it's awful (synthetic and even off key in certain places)! Sorry
to have bothered everybody... If anybody still want to hear, it's here:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005N2DS5Y/?tag=pageturners0c&link_code=as3&creativeASI\
N=B005N2DS5Y&creative=373489&camp=211189

To: shado@yahoogroups.com
From: brave66@...
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 13:23:19 +0000
Subject: [SHADO] UFO theme on a new CD






























There is a new CD with the UFO Main Tehe by Barry Gray on it:



http://www.screenarchives.com/title_detail.cfm/ID/16351/SCIENCE-FICTION%E2%80%99\
S-FINEST-VOLUME-1/



All the best,

Branko





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]