It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

space station in peril?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 02:11 PM
link   
any thoughts on this? i found in very interesting myself

www.space.com...




posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   
When has NASA or the US Government really cared all that much about the danger that they put astronauts in?



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 11:57 AM
link   

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]



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Space exploration has always been a risky proposition. the Astonaughts from all nations that travel to space are well aware of its dangers. but i think if you asked an Astronaught not to go to Space because of the danger i think they would tell you to go to hell and go anyway. They go because it is there passion and because they know that the job they do is a benefit to us all. ut the the US and Russian governments need to ensure that all that can possibly be done to ensure their safety IS done. That is their reposibility and duty. and over all i think they do the best that they can.
EDIT: Edited for addition.

[edit on 11-6-2004 by Janus]



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join