Originally posted by sensfan
When has NASA or the US Government really cared all that much about the danger that they put astronauts in?
This is such an unjustified and horse-crap statement.
concerning the articles on the page you referenced razorback:
Yes, the Aimes report did reveal a lot of concerns in the ranks of engineering and MOD. But I might point out that a couple of these headlines are
sensationalist:
I take issue with this one "Disaster May Be a Year Away if Crew Abandons Outpost", just from a semantics standpoint. I consider a disaster
something that results in a loss of life. If we lose the station because it has been abandoned for safety reasons, we have avoided a disaster, but
suffered a loss.
Then this one, "Space Debris Poses Significant Threat" is a bit more hyperbole than I wish to engage in. Yeah, debris is always a threat. The
threat is no more significant than it is to any given shuttle mission. One should always keep in mind that space junk in a given orbit must be
traveling at relatively the same orbital speed as the shuttle or station in that orbit or it wouldn't be in that orbit. So you are not talking about
high impact velocities here. And the station is equipped with micro-meteorite impact shields that disperse the impact energy of small objects prior
to them getting to the important part of the station.
The Russian segment doesn't meet or does meet NASA standards the same way it did while it was being built. The Russian's do things different than
us. And some of the things they do are not acceptable to NASA (i.e. NASA would never do them that way), but all safety issues were cussed and
discussed and a level of comfort and acceptance was either met, or they were rejected and changed.
[edit on 6-11-2004 by Valhall]
