In article ,
says...
Consider Apollo 13 (basing myself on the movie, assuming that particular
passage is not too inacurate). Did the removal of all the sen[s]ors from the
astronauts's bodies in any way jeoperdize their lives ?

hmmm... a related question: did the lack of bio-med data interfere with
the ability of the folks in Houston to diagnose and treat the bladder
infection?

As I understand it, Haise's infection was not known to the Flight
Surgeon. It it had been known, the confusion about urine dumps could
have been resolved.


(And I have to ask, if those sensors were still active, at a time where there
was an urgent need to conserve any power, didn't leaving those sensors on
actually jeoperdize their life by reducing the chances they would make it to
earth ?)

Engineers learn to make trade-offs. Is it better to improve A if B is
denigrated or vice-versa?

Frex: In Apollo 13, there was a deliberate decision to retain the
useless SM. Jettisoning it would have allowed the LM's limited rockets
to bring the crew home quicker (a good thing) but would have exposed the
CM heat shield to non-understood the cold of deep space (a bad thing).
So what do you do? Bring it home sooner and risk a heat shield failure?
Protect the heat shield and risk running out of consumables? You have to
make the trade-off and hope/pray.


Consider the air you breathe when you walk in manhattan, or what you breathen
in crowded subways/trains. People survive this. NASA seems to underestimate
the human body's capabilities.

Conversely, there is now some serious debate about the health effects of
breathing in Manhattan during the latter half of September, 2001. Did
the debris of the World Trade Center disaster result in unhealthy air?
The debate is in progress...
--
Kevin Willoughby oSpam

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins