12 May
2003
12 May
'03
10:17 a.m.
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>
12 May
12 May
10:38 a.m.
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(a)mythtech.net>
To: "Classic Computer" <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Voyager watts
not
>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 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> 
11:31 a.m.
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(a)mythtech.net>
To: "Classic Computer" <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Voyager watts
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>
>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
12:14 p.m.
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?
----- Original Message -----
From: "J.C. Wren" <jcwren(a)jcwren.com>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Voyager watts
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(a)mythtech.net>
> To: "Classic Computer" <cctalk(a)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>
6:16 p.m.
On Mon, 12 May 2003, J.C. Wren wrote:
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.
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 *
6:56 p.m.
--- Vintage Computer Festival <vcf(a)siconic.com> wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2003, J.C. Wren wrote:
Yep, a growing boy needs his 'tang.
-ethan
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
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.
Velcro and Tang (to name just two)! 
10:21 p.m.
On Mon, 12 May 2003, J.C. Wren wrote:
For your nostalgic listening pleasure, the "Tang song":
http://home.earthlink.net/~wmsmith/tangsong.mp3
"Do the moon walk like the astronauts . . . "
-W
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.
Velcro and Tang (to name just two)!
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage
Computer Festival
7736
days inactive
7737
days old
7 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
cb＠mythtech.net -
erd_6502＠yahoo.com -
jcwren＠jcwren.com -
jrasite＠eoni.com -
teoz＠neo.rr.com -
vcf＠siconic.com -
wmsmith＠earthlink.net