You *really* don't want to go there about "going to the moon didn't do
anything for us". You have *no* idea how many technologies, chemicals, and
devices used daily are a direct spin-off of the space programs.
I'm willing to apply the same theory I use for anti-animal testing people:
"We'll just take away every product you use that's been tested on animals.
And see how long you survive, particularly if you take any regularly
scheduled medications." I'm for response testing on animals, but not 20,000
rabbits killed to prove that Mabeline Lipstick Color #1235 is safe.
--John
On Monday 12 May 2003 15:29 pm, TeoZ wrote:
> NASA used to have all the money they ever wanted, untill people got bored
> with space and other sections of the government got the extra money.
>
> It looks to me like NASA has too many projects it funnels limited amounts
> of money into, and the management places more concern on meeting deadlines
> then safety. Ignoring danger warnings from designers on o-ring seals, not
> spending the money to check the last shuttle in space for damage via spy
> satelite pictures.
>
> To be honest the manned missions to the moon didnt really help us out much
> (except to force us to make the technology to get there). We would learn
> more, and probably find a payback from exploring the deep oceans (maybe
> even mining them) then having somebody land on mars and then hop back on
> the spaceship to earch with a few rocks (a probe is better suited for
> this).
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "chris" <cb_at_mythtech.net>
> To: "Classic Computer" <cctalk_at_classiccmp.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 3:15 PM
> Subject: Re: OT: Voyager watts
>
> > >Plutonium is an extremely toxic metal. 1 microgram will kill you damn
> > >quick.
> > >Plus it's readily absorbed by tissue, which means everywhere you have a
>
> Pu
>
> > >speck, you're irradiating tissue with ionizing radiation in a few
>
> centimeter
>
> > >radius. Not good for a long term outlook.
> >
> > Ok, that answered the other question I just posed, that is, how dangerous
> > is it.
> >
> > Sounds like its some pretty nasty stuff so an explosion WOULD be of
> > actual concern.
> >
> > > Incidently, the tree huggers worries on this matter are not completely
> > >unfounded. Because of launch weight issues, the shielding material is
>
> not
>
> > >really designed to survive reentry.
> >
> > And add to it like Dwight said, NASA's track record for screwing things
> > up... and yeah, I guess there was a good cause for concern. I could see
> > it being less of an issue in the past when NASA spent tons and tons of
> > money on a single probe, but these days, when they seem hell bent on
> > getting the cost under that of a VW Bug, I would expect more accidents to
> > occur.
> >
> > -chris
> > <http://www.mythtech.net>
Received on Mon May 12 2003 - 15:31:00 BST