Puzzle Description:

STS-130 Space Shuttle Endeavor. More in comments.

#1: Teresa K (fasstar) on Jan 29, 2010 [SPOILER]

Space Shuttle Endeavor with the Cupola and Node 3 Tranquility payload. The blue is the NASA logo and the red is the American flag. Mission STS-130 launch date: Feb. 7,2010, led by Commander George Zamka.

STS-130 Press Kit: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420302main_sts130_press_kit.pdf

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view hints

One of my brothers is a NASA mission control man. The press release he sent me stated that this is the last Endeavor mission, and the Feb. 7 launch planned for 4:39 a.m. EST, will make this the final night launch.

There are a couple of other shuttle puzzles on this site, but this was very nice.

Thanks, Adam. I can remember solving one or two; this one is different because it has a cool node with a cupola. I learned some new words today. :-)

Very nicely done for such a small scale! Fun and challenging to solve.

Thanks, Sallie.

Very nice. I especially liked the use of color for the labels.

Very nice. I especially liked the use of color for the labels.

Thanks, BlackCat.

another nice one.

Thanks, Telly.

and it is the most polluting object in the world.

The most polluting object in the world? The main engines burn liquid hydrogen in liquid oxygen. The noxious waste product of this combustion is ... water. The solid rocket boosters are more complex. I had to google that. You end up with potassium chloride and aluminum oxide. I don't think either of these are major pollutants, though I could be wrong. Probably quite a lot of CO2 is generated, and manufacturing the space shuttle probably generates a significant amount of pollution too. However cleanly the main engines burn, producing that much liquid hydrogen and oxygen takes a lot of energy, and thus a lot of pollution.

Still, I would think there are substantially more polluting objects in the world. The Chernobyl nuclear reactor would be a good candidate. Would you count the average big city airport as an "object"? I think that would trump the shuttle easily.

sorry jan, google it better and think about the sheer size of the rockets. furthermore, it pollutes the upper atmosphere.

The exhaust from APCP solid rocket motors contain mostly water, carbon dioxide, hydrogen chloride, and a metal oxide (typically aluminium oxide). The hydrogen chloride can easily dissociate into water and create corrosive hydrochloric acid, damaging launch equipment and biasing the pH of local water and rainfall (See acid rain).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_Perchlorate_Composite_Propellant#Environmental_and_other_concerns


" ... 23 tons of harmful particulate matter settle around the launch area each liftoff, and nearly 13 tons of hydrochloric acid kill fish and plants within half a mile of the site ... the environmental cost per launch is the same as that of New York City over a weekend ..."

Source(s):
"Discover" magazine, December 2007 special issue, page 21, "A Spaceport for Tree Huggers".

KCl is toxic in excess; the LD50 is around 2.5 g/kg (meaning that a lethal dose for 50% of people weighing 75 kg (165 lb) is about 190 g (6.7 ounces), or about 38 teaspoons). Intravenously this is reduced to just over 100 mg/kg, but of more concern are its severe effects on the cardiac muscles; high doses can cause cardiac arrest and rapid death, ergo its aforementioned use as the third and final drug delivered in the lethal injection process.

Next sentence of the article you quoted:

"Still, the expected impact of spaceflight pales in comparison with the carbon footprint of a commercial airport. Los Angeles International Airport has carbon dioxide emissions of nearly 19,000 tons a month, taking into account the use of electricity and natural gas. Meanwhile, the roughly 33,000 airplanes that fly in and out of the airport each month emit about 800,000 tons of carbon dioxide."

It certainly pollutes a lot, but is it really the most polluting object in the world?

that is right. consequently aviation is far more polluting. however, airports and airplanes cannot be considered as a single object.

Is the Chernobyl reactor a single object? I was in Rome shortly after the melt down. For some reason they were draining all swimming pools and dumping all green vegetables. I was in Moscow a few days later, but that was OK. That was upwind.

How about the Exxon Valdez?

Of course, neither of those would necessarily have been so very messy if they had worked as designed. So maybe we should only compare the shuttle to properly working objects.

How about a old-style monster coal burning power plant? Let's say, for example, the Muskingum River Plant in Ohio. In a year, 7 million tons of C02, 125,000 tons of sulpher dioxide, 18,000 tons of nitrous oxide. And that's only the 45th dirtiest coal plant in the US. Never mind the amazingly nasty old plants in China and India.

accidents does not count since they do not repeat themselves, and please consider how much pollution generated by those rocket boosters in minutes. but you are right, let them fart through the sky, let your country as the only state that does not sign the kyoto protocol, let yourself drive your suv's, and we will make environmentalist puzzles here, and hope to change the world.

Sanane, thank you for all the enlightening information. There are many important issues in the world and in our communities that we need to pay attention to, and the global climate is one of those. I am always open to learning more and to listening to both sides when there is a difference of opinion.

Your defensiveness over Jan's comments has brought out some anger that seems to be directed to U.S. citizens in general. I love my country, but I don't support many (most?) of our legislative actions. That the U.S. did not sign the Kyoto Protocol does not mean that the U.S. does not take serious steps to protect the environment. Someone here can probably list all the laws that have been enacted in the past 40 years or so.

Please don't judge me just because I live in the U.S. Legislation that is passed or not passed does not reflect the position of everyone or of specific individuals in our country. (That's generalizing). We don't all drive SUV's. I don't drive one, and I take action on a daily basis to conserve energy and protect the environment.

My making a puzzle of a space vehicle does mean I promote global pollution any more than a puzzle about a martini expresses promotion of alcohol abuse. And making puzzles about solar power does not make me an environmentalist. I care about the environment. I care about babies affected by alcohol during pregnancy. I care about the homeless in our community and in Haiti. I care about the future of our planet. I make contact with my state and federal lawmakers and tell them what I want them to support. Legislation seldom goes the way I want. But I continue to educate myself and others about the really important issues.

Two of my brothers are environmentalists. I ask them to keep me informed about those issues. One of my brothers is a rocket scientist at NASA. I support the reduction of the U.S. space program, even if it means my brother loses his job. But I still think rockets are cool.

Hopefully we can continue discussions where we share facts and opinions with reason and respect. If we allow our anger to turn the discussion into mud slinging, well that's a different type of pollution, that I don't want to take part in.

Of course I hope to change the world. Who knows, perhaps there are puzzles here that have comments that help to raise awareness about issues that may actually prompt action to make the world a better place, a little at a time.

nice puzzle

Thanks, Deana.

I disagree with the specific statement that the space shuttle is the most polluting object in the world.

How you conclude from that that I am not an environmentalist I do not know. I think it is possible to be an environmentalist without automatically agreeing with every random environmentalish statement anybody makes.

I think a case could be made that the space program has, so far, contributed more to reducing pollution than creating it. I think without it, we'd have a vastly poorer understanding of the global environment.

well said Jan and Teresa

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion, Jan. I always learn a lot from your comments. I think because of the many comments on various issues that have been brought up on this site, that I am a little more informed than I would be otherwise, and therefore more capable of being a responsible citizen of Planet Earth, and more protective of those vulnerable inhabitants who might not be so capable.

That reminds me of George Carlin's bit on Saving the Planet. He asks "How can we save the planet when we can't even save ourselves... we haven't learned how to take care of ourselves and each other yet." I don't agree with everything he says, but it might give some people something to think about, or at least a chuckle or two and a different perspective:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=948Nm34arfA

very, very, very fun solve and great image or such a small puzzle.

Thanks for all your comments, Linda.

Show: Hints

Goto next topic

You must register and log in to be able to participate in this discussion.