wired.com — Manned space flight has become so routine that it is easy to forget that it’s inherently dangerous to stuff astronauts inside a cramped capsule and blast them into the heavens on top of a Saturn V rocket. The Apollo 13 mission reminded us just how vulnerable we are.
Apr 13, 2007 View in Crawl 4
cl1mh4224rdApr 14, 2007
This account has been closed by the user
cbfrederApr 14, 2007
Am I supposed to get that?
andypatilApr 14, 2007
How do you call the Shuttle safer then Saturn V. I am assuming by Saturn V , you mean the Apollo spacecraft. Comparing the shuttle with Saturn V is comparing apples with oranges. Additionally if you are thinking of comparing the entire Shuttle System with Saturn V with Apollo, then Shuttle has had two explosions killing 14 humans. Apollo has had one fatality with loss of 3 humans. But still Shuttle has a higher rate of fatality then Apollo. No way I would call Shuttle safer then Apollo. If it is so, then how come NASA is going back to Apollo design. The shuttle design is inherently dangerous. No escape system!!!!! Imagine sitting a massive explosive bomb with no escape mechanics. Too dangerous... Just too dangerous.Comparing the shuttle launch system with Saturn V, Saturn V completed 13 launches with no loss of payload, shuttle launch system has had two losses. Yes by statics Shuttles failure rate will come down, but it will never be zero . Just My Two Cents....
bravolimaApr 14, 2007
HOW DID HUMAN BEINGS SURVIVE PASSING THROUGH BOTH VAN ALLEN RADIATION BELTSTWICE??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????WHY ARE THE DIGG GATEKEEPERS SO AFRAID OF THE TRUTH???????????????????????????
rbowesApr 14, 2007
<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_Radiation_Belt#Impact_on_space_travel">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_Radiation_Belt#Impact_on_space_travel</a>OMG the wikipedia gatekeepers are out to get you too!
surfer51Apr 14, 2007
Dude your wrong...It takes at least 6 feet of lead to protect against the Van Allen radiation, not to mention the constant solar winds. Hours of exposure in space are not possible without proper shielding. Cloth layer suits don't cut it!Chernobyl.1,000 microroentgen equals one milliroentgen, and 1,000 milliroentgen equals one roentgen. So one roentgen is 100,000 times the average radiation of a typical city. A dose of 500 roentgens within 5 hours is fatal to humans. Interestingly, it takes about 2 1/2 times that dosage to kill a chicken and over 100 times that to kill a c**kroach. This sort of radiation level cannot now be found in Chernobyl. In the first days after the explosion, some places around the reactor were emitting 3,000 - 30,000 roentgens per hour. The firemen who were sent to put out the reactor fire were fried on the spot by gamma radiation. The remains of the reactor were entombed within an enormous steel and concrete sarcophagus, so it is now relatively safe to travel to the area...as long as one does not step off of the roadway and does not stand in the wrong places.Space, outside of low earth orbit, is like standing near Chernobyl after she blew...
connielingusApr 15, 2007
I worked as a summer intern at NASA/Cape Canaveral for two summers while in Engineering school here in Florida, and the general consensus at the Cape was that every time a manned mission went up and it DID NOT blow up, it was considered a minor miracle.Launching three very fragile humans on top of a three solid fuel rockets and bringing them back alive is one heck of a trick.
bravolimaApr 16, 2007
___________________________________________________________________________________Wikipedia notwithstanding, the NASA footage from the original Lunar Landing Mission in 1969 clearlyshows the astronauts FAKING a lunar orbit view of Earth from Near Earth Orbit. Wik admits thedanger; 2500 rems/year = 6.85rems/day, but doesn't site the source of the data. I'm willing to betthat 6.8 rems/day would be on the LOW end of the range, depending on flightpath, solar conditions,date, etc. If Wikipedia is the source of the "ultimate last word" for you, I can only suggest youbroaden your search parameters and your imagination!<a class="user" href="http://www.afunnythinghappenedonthewaytothemoon.com/">http://www.afunnythinghappenedonthewaytothemoon.com/</a>___________________________________________________________________________________
bravolimaApr 16, 2007
From a senior Rockwell Engineer's mouth, not made up...
bravolimaApr 16, 2007
___________________________________________________________________________________Where and how often the LEM was flown has no bearing on the phony footage of earth shot frominside the Command Module; they left the camera on showing how the window was modified withcardboard/paper to make the earth appear far away, as it would if the command module was in lunarorbit. I didn't say allegedly, either; the footage is marked with NASA time/date stamp and PROVESthe Command Module WAS IN NEAR EARTH ORBIT THE DAY OF THE ALLEGED LANDING, almosta quarter million miles away from a lunar orbit!FYI, if you look at NASA photos Apollo astronauts supposedly shot on the moon, you will note clearevidence of multiple light sources used in the filming, when the ONLY light source was allegedly theSun. Shadow lines from a solar light source are always parallel, while the shadow lines in the NASAphotos clearly show hotspots and widely divergent shadows. Somewhere there is a soundstage wherethe "STARLESS SKY" of the Apollo "Landing" was filmed, complete with the air conditioners on thehot soundstage that "blew" the American Flag around more than once during the "official LIVE TV"broadcast. There isn't much wind on the moon, but in a broiling hot soundstage full of klieglightsand people wearing spacesuits that probably didn't have functioning AC/Life Support systems, thereWAS wind on the day of filming, and we all saw the flag wave unless we were in a stupor, on the dayof the alleged LIVE BROADCAST OF THE ORIGINAL MOONWALK! Face the facts! We spent billionsto go into orbit and PRETEND Apollo missions went to the moon! The Shuttle should be more thancapable of delivering a lander to lunar orbit and returning, but it has never been done in all the yearsof shuttle operation; WHY? Because they can't do the mission with that equipment!<a class="user" href="http://www.afunnythinghappenedonthewaytothemoon.com/">http://www.afunnythinghappenedonthewaytothemoon.com/</a>____________________________________________________________________________________ 30