Question For Darwinists

That's weak.

It is uncontested that in the 1950's, the technology to put a man into space and get him down again was dangerous. Something like 30% of large rockets blew up at launch and large rockets have caused (unintentional) fatalities since 1930's Germany. Since then, rocket culture has been a culture of safety which outsiders like yourself rarely appreciate. Rocket launch is always uncomfortable, noisy and scary. The Soviets covered up the death of Laika, the dog aboard Sputnik 2 in 1957. So there are many reasons why animal testing might be preferred.

But, noone said eyeballs would explode because of zero-g. You made that claim up and then defended it even though you knew or should have known it was false.
Likewise, the fact that both the US and Soviets began with animals is not proof that zero-g is intimical to human life. This was a time of new, untested technology.
Finally, the fact that testing is a type of experiment would seem to show that their mindset was anything other than dogmatic or religious.
 
I fully support your intention and your comments apart form this.
rpenner said:
The Soviets covered up the death of Laika, the dog aboard Sputnik 2 in 1957.
Click to expand...
There was no cover up of the death of Laika. My recollection is that we knew the dog was doomed even before it died. Or have I misunderstood you?
 
According to 21th century disclosures, Laika did not die painlessly as reported as part of a planned euthanasia, or when the batteries ran out, or relatively painlessly through anoxia after 4 days, but overheated within hours of launch.
The flight of the second artificial satellite of the Earth with Layka dog was held on November 3, 1957. All resources of life- support system were designed for 7 days of flight. The analysis of the data of the parameters of the environment of the cabin has shown, that the content of oxygen during flight was sufficient. The fact, that pressure in the cabin was not reduced, proved its reliable tightness. It was very important, as the satellite passed through areas of meteoric flows. Normalization of parameters of breath and blood circulation of Layka during orbital flight has allowed to make a conclusion, that the long weightlessness does not cause essential changes in a status of animal organisms. During flight the gradual increase of temperature and humidity in the cabin was registered via telemetric channels. Approximately in 5 - 7 hours of flight there was a failure of telemetry system. It was not possible to detect a status of the dog since the fourth circuit. During the ground simulation of this flight's conditions, the conclusion was made, that Layka should be lost because of overheating on 3d or 4-th circuit of flight.
Click to expand...
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002iaf..confE.288M

Yes, the dog was obviously doomed. I did not mean to suggest that Laika was functionally immortal as such a dog would have to be to be alive today. But the entire program was rushed for political reasons and the results reported in the 1950's, and later in 1999 were untrue.

From 1999: http://www.space.com/news/laika_anniversary_991103.html
 
rpenner said:
The Soviets covered up the death of Laika, the dog aboard Sputnik 2 in 1957.
Ophiolite said:
There was no cover up of the death of Laika. My recollection is that we knew the dog was doomed even before it died. Or have I misunderstood you?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
rpenner is correct. The Soviets routinely covered up problems with their space program, literally starting from day 1 with Laika's death.
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2367681.stm,
BBC said:
The dog Laika, the first living creature to orbit the Earth, did not live nearly as long as Soviet officials led the world to believe. The animal, launched on a one-way trip on board Sputnik 2 in November 1957, was said to have died painlessly in orbit about a week after blast-off.

Now, it has been revealed she died from overheating and panic just a few hours after the mission started.
Click to expand...

rpenner said:
That's weak.

It is uncontested that in the 1950's, the technology to put a man into space and get him down again was dangerous. Something like 30% of large rockets blew up at launch and large rockets have caused (unintentional) fatalities since 1930's Germany. Since then, rocket culture has been a culture of safety which outsiders like yourself rarely appreciate. Rocket launch is always uncomfortable, noisy and scary. The Soviets covered up the death of Laika, the dog aboard Sputnik 2 in 1957. So there are many reasons why animal testing might be preferred.

But, noone said eyeballs would explode because of zero-g. You made that claim up and then defended it even though you knew or should have known it was false.
Likewise, the fact that both the US and Soviets began with animals is not proof that zero-g is intimical to human life. This was a time of new, untested technology.
Finally, the fact that testing is a type of experiment would seem to show that their mindset was anything other than dogmatic or religious.
Click to expand...

OilIsMastery said:
The name of the chimpanzee was Ham.
rpenner said:
That's weak.

No one said eyeballs would explode because of zero-g. You made that claim up and then defended it even though you knew or should have known it was false. Likewise, the fact that both the US and Soviets began with animals is not proof that zero-g is intimical to human life. This was a time of new, untested technology. Finally, the fact that testing is a type of experiment would seem to show that their mindset was anything other than dogmatic or religious.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Bingo, bingo to rpenner, that is. OIM gets a raspberry.

rpenner said:
Since then, rocket culture has been a culture of safety which outsiders like yourself rarely appreciate.
Click to expand...
Just to give you outsiders a peek at what rpenner is talking about, the group at NASA that develops the onboard flight software for the Shuttle was the first group to achieve CMMI Level 5 status. They have a process for everything. The test software goes through as much vetting as does the flight software, and even the software to test their test software is very well vetted. If you add up all the people time taken to perform and evaluate trade studies; develop, verify, and maintain requirements; develop, verify, validate, and maintain designs; develop, verify, validate, test, and maintain implementations; develop, verify, validate, test, qualify, accept, and maintain releases, and divide that time by the number of lines of code in the Shuttle flight software you get

one line of code per person per hour.
 
D H said:
rpenner is correct. The Soviets routinely covered up problems with their space program, literally starting from day 1 with Laika's death.
Click to expand...
No. rpenner was incorrrect in what he stated. He was not incorrect in what he meant to state. I have no problem with the statement "the soviets covered up the timing and the nature of the death of Laika." Whereas "the soviets covered up the death of Laika" is simply wrong.
 
Ophiolite said:
No. rpenner was incorrrect in what he stated. He was not incorrect in what he meant to state. I have no problem with the statement "the soviets covered up the timing and the nature of the death of Laika." Whereas "the soviets covered up the death of Laika" is simply wrong.
Click to expand...
You are assuming that when rpenner wrote "The Soviets covered up the death of Laika" that he meant the Soviets claimed Laika didn't die, period, while in space. How do you know that that is what rpenner meant? That the Soviets lied about the death of Laika is indisputably true. The coverup was not that Laika died, because Laika obviously was a sacrifice to science from the get-go. The coverup was the manner and timing of her death. The Soviets claimed that Laika died on orbit, but only after surviving in space for several days, thereby proving the viability of space flight. Laika died shortly after ascent, thereby failing to prove the viability of space flight. That is a coverup.
 
OilsofMastery.

You haven't posted for a while.
Come back. At least you stand your ground. :)

What did you mean by
"The name of the chimpanzee was Ham"?
 
OilIsMastery said:
How come we don't see life being spontaneously generated in today's oceans and how come we can't produce life in the lab (e.g. Miller's [Miller-Urey] Primordial Soup experiment)?
Click to expand...

Maybe it is, are you watching every cubic inch of water in all the oceans for signs of emerging life?
 
D H said:
You are assuming that when rpenner wrote "The Soviets covered up the death of Laika" that he meant the Soviets claimed Laika didn't die, period, while in space. How do you know that that is what rpenner meant?
Click to expand...
I can only guess at what rpenner meant. What I can be sure of is what the words he wrote mean. That was what I reacted to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top