Saw this article earlier. I thought an HB would use this as proof for their radiation argument. You may fire when ready [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

__________________
If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the precipitate.

Um, which article?

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

DOH!!!
Sorry, here it is for real this time.
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2074625

__________________
If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the precipitate.

Why astronaut Donald Thomas? According to the article, he's only spent 43 days in space. Many of the other astronauts have spent much more time up there, not even counting the ones who served on Mir and the ISS.

I'm sure there are radiation monitors on all the manned flights. Maybe Thomas has a higher exposure than many others due to solar flares. Exposure during EVA is higher than inside.

As someone who works at JSC, I've never heard this statement from NASA. I'd like to see the oringinal press release. Those of us here at JSC, think he was removed from the ISS mission because he got a kidney stone.

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/news/releases/2002/H02-139.html


BACKUP CREW MEMBER ASSIGNED TO EXPEDITION SIX

Donald Pettit, Ph.D., a member of the Expedition Six backup crew, will replace Donald Thomas, Ph.D., on the future mission to the International Space Station.

Pettit has been training as backup flight engineer for this expedition and will join Expedition Commander Kenneth Bowersox (Capt., USN) and Russian cosmonaut Nikolai Budarin. The reassignment results from a medical issue that affects Thomas' long-duration space flight qualification.

"The demanding nature of long-term space flight requires a conservative approach to crew health issues, especially this early in the program," said Astronaut Office Chief, Charlie Precourt. "We have had to make such adjustments before; this again demonstrates the value of training backup space station crewmembers in parallel with the prime crews."


I guess because it is a personal medical issue, they don't give details.
Discovery Channel also extends this release to a radiation related issue http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs...radiation.html , but who knows. As already pointed out, he was not already that long in space.

Harald

One gets radiation exposure from other sources besides outer space, but it all adds up in the 'career exposure limit' column. Sad case.

<a name="2-11-27.6:36A.M."> page 2-11-27.6:36A.M. aka AS A 7
On 2002-11-27 09:17, JimO wrote: To? 6:37 A.M.
ok so at 7pm last night I did go to Pmug on 10th
the place had moved from 5th floor to 4th floor
{BWUW} and after extensive Questioning? outgoing & incomming
call I did wind up with the schedule so i'll
{very probably} go again tonight.. at least i sent this E-mail
to that effect..Now back to how much is to much
REMember in my terms Each event was 100,000K
not 100M {see 2morrows brurp} as i do not use the M word Sorry

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-11-27 10:48 ]</font>

You mean, when he was training he was well under his limit and then for some reasons he got some heavy x-rays or similar that pushed him over the limit? That's really sad.

<a name="2-11-27.7:24A.M."> page 2-11-27.7:24A.M. aka 7:24 A.M.
On 2002-11-27 09:45, kucharek wrote: A 7
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...#JD2452577.RAT
<pre>
s cm cm/s dyne 1 e 0 erg ! gram(UNIT

SEC METER M/S NEWTON 10 e 6 Joule WATT kg( 3)

?hr M _warm 3.6 e 12 kWhr !cty Mg( 6)
</pre>
{BWUW} anyway if you read this T.rash U know I think the Alpha
Just coud not handle the DOSe ? nevermind : back to ESp {Enforced Stupidity Primetime} "KE/rn/al"
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-11-27 10:48 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-12-05 04:22 ]</font>

The occupational exposure limit in the U.S. is 50 millisieverts per year, or about 1/700 the LD50/30 dose. In other words, a very conservative, very draconian dose. NASA is not exempt from these limits. It's very revealing that when an astronaut is sidelined for (alleged) radiation issues, it's a big deal. It doesn't happen all the time, meaning that space is not invariably deadly.

Of course the hoax believers make a big deal out of this. They're the quintessential radiophobes. Let a football player be sidelined for an injury or other health issues and no one bats an eye. Let an astronaut be sidelined for radiation issues, and all heck breaks loose. Any bit of evidence that says space is a "radiation hazard" makes them jump to the conclusion that it's an inescapably deadly hazard.

Heck, I probably get more radiation than that sitting in this computer lab for a few hours a day.

Aporetic

[edited for spelling]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: aporetic_r on 2002-11-27 15:44 ]</font>

From my experience at JSC, when an astronaut leaves for something other than taking a high paying job at an aerospace firm, NASA never discloses the reasons why. Privacy issues.

I have yet to see any official NASA release stating that Don Thomas couldn't fly an ISS mission due to radiation exposure. His last flight was in 1997 and I'm sure NASA knew what his radiation dose was/is. BTW he has never performed an EVA.

There are several medical reasons why he is non longer qualified for flight.

Kidney stone
Cancer
Poor vision - less than 20/200.
Some broken bones

Also he could have broken the cardinal sin of the astronaut corps and that is getting hurt doing something stupid once you've assigned to a flight. I noticed from his bio he is a pilot and there are some restrictions on personal flying once being assigned to a flight.

My gut feeling is that radiation was not the cause of his being cut from the flight.

Here is his astronaut bio from NASA:
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/thomas-d.html
That does not exactly state it is radiation. You can also glean more information about his amount of time in space.

You know, it's a shame that even NASA supporters have to look questioningly at NASA's stated reason for changing an astronaut's status. Says something about how they handle personnel issues.

Someone's state of health is generally his own business and no one else's. This puts NASA (and, incidentally, many government agencies) in a bind. NASA has a responsibility to report its activities to the public, but it also has a responsibility to protect the privacy of its employees. So when an astronaut is removed from a flight for medical reasons, NASA has to report truthfully that it was for "medical reasons", but that doesn't mean posting the astronaut's x-rays and colonoscopy on the NASA web site.

Remember, it's we who make astronauts celebrities, not they. Just because we pay closer attention to them than to, say, a park ranger, doesn't obligate them to act imprudently on our behalf.

You're absolutely right, Jay. I was thinking more about Story Musgrave, and how a number of fellow astronauts were put off by that incident.