Subject: Re: OT: Voyager watts

From: chris <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon May 12 14:17:01 2003

>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>

---

From: "TeoZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon May 12 14:38:00 2003

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).

---

From: "J.C. Wren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon May 12 15:31:00 2003

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:

> 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
> 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).
>
>
> > >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
>
> > >unfounded.  Because of launch weight issues, the shielding material is
>
> not
>

---

From: "TeoZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon May 12 16:14:00 2003

What part of my message did I not make clear. Having a man on the moon and
bringing some rocks back didnt do much for us. I do agree getting there
invented alot of technology , systems, discoveries, materials etc and stated
as much. I also think most of the technology was used to just get man in
space for any period of time. If we went to the moon 1000 times and just
walked around and picked up rocks would we learn anything more (and would
the cost be worth it) then just going a few times?

---

From: Vintage Computer Festival <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon May 12 22:16:00 2003

> devices used daily are a direct spin-off of the space programs.

Velcro and Tang (to name just two)!

-- 

Sellam Ismail                                        Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger                http://www.vintage.org

 * Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *

---

From: Ethan Dicks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon May 12 22:56:16 2003

--- Vintage Computer Festival <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > anything for us".  You have *no* idea how many technologies, chemicals,
> > and devices used daily are a direct spin-off of the space programs.
> 

Yep, a growing boy needs his 'tang.

-ethan
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

---

From: Jim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue May 13 01:02:01 2003

>Velcro and Tang (to name just two)!
And my personal 'can't-do-without' space technology: battery powered 
tools.  Couldn't live without my cordless drill.

Jim

---

From: "Wayne M. Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue May 13 02:21:00 2003

> > 	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.
> 

For your nostalgic listening pleasure, the "Tang song":

http://home.earthlink.net/~wmsmith/tangsong.mp3

"Do the moon walk like the astronauts . . . "

-W