On basis of figures, space journey is safest journey. In 50 years
space history, not a single human casuality happened in space. All
accidents either happened on earth or in atmosphere.

It is unparallel record for any mode of journey. NASA and all other
space agencies deserve special Nobel prize.

On 27 Jan 2007 10:42:59 -0800, "neo" > wrote:

>On basis of figures, space journey is safest journey. In 50 years
>space history, not a single human casuality happened in space. All
>accidents either happened on earth or in atmosphere.
>
>It is unparallel record for any mode of journey. NASA and all other
>space agencies deserve special Nobel prize.

If you exclude the parts of driving in which your vehicle hits
something, driving is very safe, too.

Don

In article . com>,
"neo" > wrote:

> On basis of figures, space journey is safest journey. In 50 years
> space history, not a single human casuality happened in space. All
> accidents either happened on earth or in atmosphere.
>
> It is unparallel record for any mode of journey. NASA and all other
> space agencies deserve special Nobel prize.

sort of like the NTSB saying that pipeline is the safest form of
transportation.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

On 27 Jan 2007 10:42:59 -0800, "neo" > wrote:

>On basis of figures, space journey is safest journey. In 50 years
>space history, not a single human casuality happened in space. All
>accidents either happened on earth or in atmosphere.

The three Soyuz 11 cosmonauts died when their capsule depressurized at the start
of the re-entry sequence. Can't describe that as being "in atmosphere".

Ron Wanttaja

"neo" > wrote in message
oups.com

> On basis of figures, space journey is safest journey. In 50 years
> space history, not a single human casuality happened in space. All
> accidents either happened on earth or in atmosphere.
>
> It is unparallel record for any mode of journey. NASA and all other
> space agencies deserve special Nobel prize.

Right on the mark, the mostly Jewish Third Reich Nobel Prize at that.
After all, we village idiot Americans simply couldn't have accomplished
squat worth of such fly-by-rocket expertise if we had to.

That first Apollo-01 fire should never have happened, nor should their
pad safety engineer and of his entire family have been lethally
terminated along with having destroyed all of his job specific
documentations. The known physics, science and expertise of workmanship
of that day should have easily prevented such a lethal fiasco.

In other words, there should have been absolute loads of red flags all
over the place as of days and weeks if not months prior to that launch.

Commentary: NASA must fight the forgetting

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/6342aea5dd600e0d/6a29063ddd0581b7?hl=en#6a29063ddd0581b7
"Neil Fraser" > wrote in message
oups.com

> It might be effective to have four displays next to each other. One
> for Apollo 204, one for Challenger, one for Columbia, and one empty.
> That might send a stronger message.
I'm afraid they'll need more than one empty display, especially if going
to the moon via another unproven fly-by-rocket lander that fails to
incorporate any such momentum reaction wheels, and otherwise not
incorporating enough shielding against the local gamma and hard-X-ray
TBI dosage.

Even via 100% earthshine (offering more than sufficient terrain
illumination), it's simply not going to be all that moonsuit end-user
friendly for accommodating much usable time of EVA exposures if any, and
via daytime it's going to double roast and/or TBI whatever from more
than one direction, and that's not to mention avoiding whatever pesky
micro-meteorite or larger speck of incoming flak that has your name on
it.
-

Unfortunately, by way of all believable accounts, it seems we haven't
quite gotten ourselves around to walking on our physically dark and
nasty moon. Therefore we have no such direct hard science of where our
somewhat salty moon was derived from, do we.

>fivedoughnut:
>Like, they're gonna take snaps facing the sun"
As you and others of your kind damn well know they actually did, and lo
and behold it looked exactly like a studio array of xenon lamps, along
with atmospheric affects. Of course their unfiltered lens (other than a
polarising element which should have made their artificial and otherwise
guano moon surface record as somewhat darker) and with lens shade as
typically utilized, plus the matter of fact that there supposedly was no
atmosphere would have permitted a fairly close to sun look-see, but
since most of the dark vacuum of space wasn't imposing a problem, and
the obvious fact that Venus wasn't actually near the critical FOV of
including our sun as of A11, A14 and A16, was it.

"get your pityful excuse for a head outta the dry-ice bucket numbskull
..... Anyhows, Earthlight abounded in mission time during the long lunar
night; wouldn't exactly melt the ol' camera film would it? oh molecule
minded one."

We see that you're being a silly naysay boy, or rather another Third
Reich minion to that status quo mindset of your's, arnt you. When the
cards and cold hard facts are down on the table, it's you that doesn't
accept those regular laws of physics, nor have you folks accepted the
replicated science of others, including those of Kodak. NASA's
infomercial science and of their hypology and/or buttology is all that
you've got to work with, and sadly it just isn't good enough any more,
is it.

So, others and I'm right about the entire hocus-pocus Apollo thing, as
otherwise you'd have easily told us and otherwise as having that nifty
3D interactive simulator have shown us village idiots exactly where
Sirius, Venus and a few other pesky items that were within the DR of
their Kodak film were situated, and of how supposedly stealth/invisible
those items were to such an unfiltered Kodak eye, as of at least
throughout missions A11, A14 and A16. Of course, being the pagan
born-again heathen liars that you are, means that you and your kind
can't afford to accommodate such truths.

BTW; Parts of Earth per given grain of Kodak film wasn't nearly as
Kodak moment bright of an item as per easily including Venus that shines
somewhat unavoidably towards violet as viewed from space. As I'd said
before, there's roughly an impressive 3000 j/m2 of 470 nm that's coming
right back at you.

Oddly nothing of local moon stuff or of anything brought along for the
Apollo ride was the least bit reactive to all of that available UV/a, as
though being xenon lamp spectrum illuminated while on that certain guano
island we both know about. Even the blue of our american flags was
rather oddly subdued, and white was simply white, as though having been
xenon lamp spectrum illuminated. Those are actually pretty neat optical
and film tricks with an unfiltered camera that's loaded with such better
than human eye spectrum sensitive film.

In addition to getting directly roasted and otherwise full-spectrum TBI
by the sun and of whatever's cosmic, there's also the secondary IR/FIR
energy that's potentially coming right at you from as many as each of
those surrounding 3.14e8 m2, not to mention having those local gamma and
pesky hard-X-rays via secondary/recoil to deal with. At any one time,
it was technically impossible for any such EVA not to be continually
surrounded by a bare minimum of 3.14e6 m2, and of course from such a
nearby orbit there's nothing but the physically dark and TBI dosage
nasty moon to look at for as far as the DNA/RNA frail eye could see from
being 100+ km off the deck, and that's one hell of a solar/cosmic and
secondary/recoil worth of TBI exposure, wouldn't you say?

Obviously the regular laws of physics and of using honest math, or much
less actual replicated science from Kodak none the less, isn't allowed
within the sacred hocus-pocus realm of any NASA/Apollo ruse of the
century, as an ongoing cold-war sting upon humanity for all it was worth
at the time of two such superpowers lying each of their perpetrated
cold-war butts off. Gee whiz folks, besides our having lost all of
those precious decades, how many spare trillions of our hard earn loot
were those decades worth?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

neo wrote:
> On basis of figures, space journey is safest journey. In 50 years
> space history, not a single human casuality happened in space. All
> accidents either happened on earth or in atmosphere.
>
> It is unparallel record for any mode of journey. NASA and all other
> space agencies deserve special Nobel prize.
>

The USSR lost at least one crew in space and possible more. It's not
like they were real chatty about failures.

neo writes:

> On basis of figures, space journey is safest journey. In 50 years
> space history, not a single human casuality happened in space. All
> accidents either happened on earth or in atmosphere.

Hardly any casualties occur in aviation in the air. Most of them
occur on contact with the ground.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:30:44 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>neo writes:

....Would you guys in .piloting *PLEASE* remove sci.space.history from
your follow-ups if you're going to respond to this "neo" idiot? He's a
known troll, and everyone on .history has killfiled him already.
Responding to anything he posts is a waste of bandwidth, and a waste
of your own time as well.

Thanks!

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Don Tuite wrote:
> If you exclude the parts of driving in which your vehicle hits
> something, driving is very safe, too.
>

And the Soyuz 11 crew did indeed die in space; they hadn't hit the
atmosphere yet when the descent module unpressurized.

Pat

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 15:35:33 -0600, OM
> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:30:44 +0100, Mxsmanic >
>wrote:
>
>>neo writes:
>
>...Would you guys in .piloting *PLEASE* remove sci.space.history from
>your follow-ups if you're going to respond to this "neo" idiot? He's a
>known troll, and everyone on .history has killfiled him already.
>Responding to anything he posts is a waste of bandwidth, and a waste
>of your own time as well.
>
Hey, Mxter! You've been officially recognized as one of us!

Don

In article >,
601XL Builder <wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet> wrote:
>> On basis of figures, space journey is safest journey. In 50 years
>> space history, not a single human casuality happened in space...
>
>The USSR lost at least one crew in space and possible more.

Just one, the Soyuz 11 crew, killed by decompression after retrofire but
before reentry.

>It's not like they were real chatty about failures.

Not at the time, no, but much more detail has come out since. All the old
Cold War rumors of unreported deaths in space are now definitely known to
be false, the result of misunderstandings and malicious rumor-mongering.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

OM wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:30:44 +0100, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
>> neo writes:
>
> ...Would you guys in .piloting *PLEASE* remove sci.space.history from
> your follow-ups if you're going to respond to this "neo" idiot? He's a
> known troll, and everyone on .history has killfiled him already.
> Responding to anything he posts is a waste of bandwidth, and a waste
> of your own time as well.
>
> Thanks!
>
> OM

Hey, neo is yours. And you can have MX as well.

Henry Spencer wrote:
> Not at the time, no, but much more detail has come out since. All the old
> Cold War rumors of unreported deaths in space are now definitely known to
> be false, the result of misunderstandings and malicious rumor-mongering.


I still think there's something odd about the Ilyushin story:
http://www.astronautix.com/astros/ilyushin.htm
By the time he's recovering down in Hangchow, China from his automobile
accident the Soviet Union and China are starting to be on on the outs.
So it's odd a top test pilot would end up down there. It's also odd that
the Soviets would seem to think that China could somehow do something
medically for him that they couldn't, because that's very much against
their traditional "We're best at everything" pride.
I don't think he was on some pre-Gagarin space mission, but I wouldn't
be surprised to find out he paid an unexpected visit to China in the
same way that Francis Gary Powers paid an unexpected visit to the USSR,
and the false report of his launch and injury was some garbled version
of real events based on rumors about this incident.
Note that one of the things he had done was establish a world altitude
record in 1959, and would later establish a sustained world altitude
record also. So he had a lot of experience in high altitude flight, and
if you were going do some photo reconnaissance of China you'd do it from
high altitude to avoid detection.

Pat