Russian "Altairski" Lunar lander

Pat Flannery wrote:

In fact, motion sickness drugs accounted for 47% of all drugs taken
during space missions according to NASA itself:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10417009


BTW, as a current - or former - NASA employee tasked with Shuttle crew
training, it frankly surprises me that the use of anti-space sickness
medications by Shuttle astronauts somehow escaped your notice.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:


Jorge R. Frank wrote:
In fact, motion sickness drugs accounted for 47% of all drugs taken
during space missions according to NASA itself:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10417009

Pat

BTW Mr. Frank, your current (or former...you're a bit stealth today in
regards to a Google search) position as a crew trainer employee for NASA
as part of the Shuttle program... makes it somewhat surprising that you
didn't know of any use on Shuttle flights of any anti-space sickness drugs.
But surprises come every day, don't they?
Yes, they do. :-D

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:


Jorge R. Frank wrote:

It is also exaggerated. Motion sickness drugs are effective at
controlling the symptoms of space sickness, but astronauts don't use
them because they make them groggy and impair their job functions.
Tourists don't have to worry about that.

http://space.newscientist.com/articl...-tourists.html


"Space sickness will likely be a big issue for novice space flyers –
even highly trained test pilots still get queasy in the new
environment of microgravity. Buckey says medication will probably be
part of the solution.
When NASA scientists started giving anti-motion sickness drugs to
students who flew experiments on the C-9 aircraft that simulates
weightlessness, they noticed a much lower rate of motion sickness than
in students who had not taken the drug.
Space catheters.
But the drug they inject to quell space sickness, promethazine – sold
under the brand name Phenergan, has its own set of problems. In space,
Phenergan has been linked to urinary retention. Four crew members have
had to have catheters inserted into their bladders during spaceflights."
So not only do they use them, but you may end up with a catheter in
you, which also probably won't go over well with space tourists.
In fact, motion sickness drugs accounted for 47% of all drugs taken
during space missions according to NASA itself:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10417009

BTW Mr. Frank, your current (or former...you're a bit stealth today in
regards to a Google search) position as a crew trainer employee for NASA
as part of the Shuttle program... makes it somewhat surprising that you
didn't know of any use on Shuttle flights of any anti-space sickness drugs.
But surprises come every day, don't they?
Yes, they do. :-D

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:


Jorge R. Frank wrote:

It is also exaggerated. Motion sickness drugs are effective at
controlling the symptoms of space sickness, but astronauts don't use
them because they make them groggy and impair their job functions.
Tourists don't have to worry about that.

http://space.newscientist.com/articl...-tourists.html


"Space sickness will likely be a big issue for novice space flyers –
even highly trained test pilots still get queasy in the new
environment of microgravity. Buckey says medication will probably be
part of the solution.
When NASA scientists started giving anti-motion sickness drugs to
students who flew experiments on the C-9 aircraft that simulates
weightlessness, they noticed a much lower rate of motion sickness than
in students who had not taken the drug.
Space catheters.
But the drug they inject to quell space sickness, promethazine – sold
under the brand name Phenergan, has its own set of problems. In space,
Phenergan has been linked to urinary retention. Four crew members have
had to have catheters inserted into their bladders during spaceflights."
So not only do they use them, but you may end up with a catheter in
you, which also probably won't go over well with space tourists.
In fact, motion sickness drugs accounted for 47% of all drugs taken
during space missions according to NASA itself:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10417009


BTW Mr. Frank, your current (or former...you're a bit stealth today in
regards to a Google search) position as a crew trainer employee for NASA
as part of the Shuttle program... makes it somewhat surprising that you
didn't know of any use on Shuttle flights of any anti-space sickness drugs.
But surprises come every day, don't they?
Yes, they do. :-D

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...


Scott Hedrick wrote:
THat's why ISS needs to handle 8 or 9 on a regular basis, so there can be
2-3 permanent maintenance positions, plus the occasional assistance of
others.

IIRC, max ISS designed crew is to be six,

Hence the problem. I don't see how ISS can be scientifically viable in the
first place, and it's less viable when the crew has to spend so much time on
maintenance.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Aug 1, 9:09 am, "Scott Hedrick" wrote:
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message

dakotatelephone...



Scott Hedrick wrote:
THat's why ISS needs to handle 8 or 9 on a regular basis, so there can be
2-3 permanent maintenance positions, plus the occasional assistance of
others.

IIRC, max ISS designed crew is to be six,

Hence the problem. I don't see how ISS can be scientifically viable in the
first place, and it's less viable when the crew has to spend so much time on
maintenance.

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

ISS being roasted to death half the time and otherwise getting moon
gamma and X-ray saturated at least half the time, not to mention
continually falling out of the sky (so to speak), is not what I'd call
a viable science platform for other than proving such a pathetic LEO
and having to continually avoid our SAA contour is technically doable,
and otherwise spendy as hell.

Venus L2 would be more than entirely survivable as is for ISS, though
getting it there might be somewhat testy.

* Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

Scott Hedrick wrote:
Hence the problem. I don't see how ISS can be scientifically viable in the
first place, and it's less viable when the crew has to spend so much time on
maintenance.


The last I read it was taking two of the crew their whole work day to
keep the station operating, and around half of the time of the third
crew member also.
So until it gets up to the full six-person crew (if ever) it's pretty
much worthless for research.
Canceling that centrifuge module was a very dumb move; being able to
study the effects on organisms in anything from zero g up to full one g
in incremental steps would have been very worthwhile in determining the
effects of long-term space environmental exposure.

Pat

On or about Fri, 01 Aug 2008 00:37:48 -0500, Pat Flannery made the sensational claim that:
BTW, as a current - or former - NASA employee tasked with Shuttle crew
training, it frankly surprises me that the use of anti-space sickness
medications by Shuttle astronauts somehow escaped your notice.

We get the point already sheesh. *rolls over and goes back to sleep*
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen

On Jul 26, 4:00*am, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in ...

Let's see, what have the Russians done? *Killed a couple of crews and
floated around the Earth quite a few times.

The shuttle program has done much the same, when measured by the same crazy
metric you're proposing here.

Their interplanetary science program is tiny compared to what we've done.

True, but they had some notable early success with Venus, which is a real
p.i.t.a. for a probe to land on and still remain operational.

Compared to the US, they really haven't done that much more and in many
ways have done a lot less.

And yet everyone holds them up as the paradigm of things done right.

To be fair, they've built and flown more space stations than the US.
They've also performed many more automated rendezvous and dockings than any
other nation.

They've also got a good deal of experience with LEO EVA's. *Their Orlan
suits have many design features that NASA is considering adding to their new
lunar EVA suits.

Their approach to manned LEO operations is different than the US approach,
but I wouldn't necessarily call it better or worse.

Simply compare the number of manned flights for example.

The shuttle alone has flown more times than all Soviet and Russian manned
missions combined.

True, but many shuttle missions had Russian/Soviet analogs which were flown
unmanned on Proton or Soyuz launchers. *For example, all of the commercial
satellite deploy missions flown by the shuttle simply didn't require
cosmonauts on board when you're launching them on a Proton or Soyuz. *Ditto
for spysat deployment missions. *Ditto for Progress missions.

True this changed for the shuttle, but only after the Challenger disaster
made it politically unacceptable for such missions to be flown on the
shuttle.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

Let us not also forget, their flight tested reactors and extensive
knowledge on liviing and working in space plus long duration space
flights for crew. Also their extreme wisdom, eg: building a space
shuttle equivalent and then realising that it's a joke for space
activities and promptly cancelling it.

Plus also a wide range of firsts,

First artificial satellite of Earth
First space traveler
First man in space
First to orbit the sun.
First to the planets.
First to the Moon.
First to Venus.
First to Mars.
First artificial satellite of the Moon
First photos of the farside of the Moon.
First landing on the Moon.
First soil from the Moon.
First car/rover on the Moon.
First artificial satellite of Venus.
First landing on Venus.
First landing on Mars.
First space ships and space stations.
First woman in space.
First multi-man crew in space.
First space "walk" by a man.
First space "walk" by a woman.
First automatic docking of spacecraft.
First return to Earth after circumlunar flight.
First crew transfer in space.
First simultaneous flight of three space ships.
First docking of a spaceship and a space stations.
First unmanned flight of a space shuttle.
First manned space station.

On Jul 26, 4:41*am, wrote:
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:



Let's see, what have the Russians done? *Killed a couple of crews and
floated around the Earth quite a few times.

Their interplanetary science program is tiny compared to what we've done.

Compared to the US, they really haven't done that much more and in many
ways have done a lot less.

And yet everyone holds them up as the paradigm of things done right.

Simply compare the number of manned flights for example.

The shuttle alone has flown more times than all Soviet and Russian manned
missions combined.

I have great respect for what the Russians have done, especially on a budget
much smaller than NASA's. *But they shared very little of that experience
until the US made overtures to them to include Russia in the ISS. *The US
is sharing what we learn with the world, rather than shrouding it in
secrecy.

Mike Ross

Except those bits that are proprietary, those bits whose technology
has/may have or could be used for military purposes. Then dont forget
those bits that could be a danger or used against "us" in whatever
paranoid realm you can think of. Then of course there are those bits
that are strategic or leading edge but we dont want examined too
closely.

Other than that everything else is made available.

The russians on the other hand make everything available. You simply
have to know where to get it and understand that the native tongue of
Russia is Russian, so that the documents will also be in Russian.

I Know I Know, if it's not in english and printed in US format and
published by Nasa, it doesnt exist . Luckily, other nations dont have
to follow this fantasy.