 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / February 2008Sick Astronauts and Medical Confidentiality Issues
Does medical privacy apply to spacemen? I would think their celebrity status would preclude any privileges of medical anonymity, at least as to his identity and nature of illness. What would happen to the mission if an astronaut expires? Would he receive a "space burial," be stowed in the cargo bay, zipped up in a space suit, for the duration, or would the shuttle abort and mission and return promptly to Earth so as the deceased would remain presentable? I presume there are continguency plans for such an unfortunate, but conceivable event. Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system Per maggiori informazioni |For more info https://www.mixmaster.it > Does medical privacy apply to spacemen? Because they are private citizens and protected by US law > I would think their celebrity > status would preclude any privileges of medical anonymity, at least as to > his identity and nature of illness. That is not a valid reason > What would happen to the mission if an astronaut expires? Would he receive > a "space burial," no >be stowed in the cargo bay, no >zipped up in a space suit,or the duration, no >or would the shuttle abort and mission and return promptly to Earth yes >so as the deceased would remain presentable? not the reason >I presume here are continguency plans for such an unfortunate, but conceivable > event. yes behlingjo wrote: [..] >> What would happen to the mission if an astronaut expires? Would he >> receive a "space burial," > no Thank goodness. That would be *too* cynical. >>be stowed in the cargo bay, > no > >>zipped up in a space suit,or the duration, > > no Do they have "body bags" on board, then? Surely they will have to do *something* with the body. To keep it out of sight, at least. >>or would the shuttle abort and mission and return promptly to Earth > > yes This is something I wonder about. Why would they abort the mission if the other crew members were still able to perform their tasks? If one of them died of, say, a heart attack, which can happen to the best, that would be very sad and unfortunate but life goes on, right? So many of the astronauts are military people. One would think they should be able to go on when one of their team falls on the battlefield. > behlingjo wrote: > So many of the astronauts are military people. One would think they > should be able to go on when one of their team falls on the battlefield. not anymore > This is something I wonder about. Why would they abort the mission if the > other crew members were still able to perform their tasks? If one of them > died of, say, a heart attack, which can happen to the best, that would be > very sad and unfortunate but life goes on, right? nope. business trips get canceled all the time On Feb 10, 7:50�pm, behlin...@gmail.com wrote: > > This is something I wonder about. Why would they abort the mission if the > > other crew members were still able to perform their tasks? If one of them > > died of, say, a heart attack, which can happen to the best, that would be > > very sad and unfortunate but life goes on, right? > > nope. �business trips get canceled all the time one would imagine they would want to off load the module, its heavy to return, and theres no extra flights to send it again >Does medical privacy apply to spacemen? I would think their celebrity >status would preclude any privileges of medical anonymity, at least as to >his identity and nature of illness. The law makes no such distinction. Brian >>Does medical privacy apply to spacemen? I would think their celebrity >>status would preclude any privileges of medical anonymity, at least as >>to his identity and nature of illness. > > The law makes no such distinction. It's a weird thought too. Why would an astronaut suddenly not have the "privilege of medical anonymity?" Is it even a privilege, I thought it was a basic right that everyone should have. Perhaps Schlegel will tell us himself on the post-flight press conference. If he choses to do that, great. If he doesn't, no big deal. > Does medical privacy apply to spacemen? I would think their celebrity > status would preclude any privileges of medical anonymity, at least as to > his identity and nature of illness. One issue is that if you set a precedant by revealing "space sickness" conditions, then NASA would be in a bind if there is a truly private medical matter that shouldn't be published. The press would hound NASA to find out why they won't reveal that condition when they reveal other conditions. In terms of death, I would assume NASA would have procedures planned for this. If they don't have a body bag, they could use the re-entry suit. During docked operations, they can't really use the airlock, but once undocked, they could seal the body in the airlock. Is there anything they can do to lower the temperature inside the airlock ? Consider that once docked, it takes about 3 days for shuttle to land. They may be able to cut it down. Once you get to such times, I am not sure if landing 3 days or 6 days after death would make such a huge difference. Singapore airline's A340-500 used for Singapore-New York route has a body bag as well as a small cavity where they can stow the body in a safe and hygienic way. Because those flights travel over very remote areas of the globe, there is no real point in diverting to arctic communities just to dump the body. If someone were to die on the QE-II between New York and London, would they just keep the body in a refrigirator until they get to London ? They don't have much of a choice to significantly speed up the ship, or cut short the trip. > > Does medical privacy apply to spacemen? I would think their celebrity > > status would preclude any privileges of medical anonymity, at least as to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > During docked operations, they can't really use the airlock, but once > undocked, they could seal the body in the airlock. The body wouldn't be left in the airlock, a seat will do fine >Is there anything they can do to lower the temperature inside the airlock ? Once the airlock is shut, it has no air circulation >> > Does medical privacy apply to spacemen? I would think their celebrity >> > status would preclude any privileges of medical anonymity, at least as [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> > Once the airlock is shut, it has no air circulation Could any MS fly and land the shuttle if something happen to Cmdr and Pilot? > <behlin...@gmail.com> escribió en el mensajenews:0228580b-02bd-4419-953e-9f67a631af37@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com... > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Could any MS fly and land the shuttle if something happen to Cmdr and Pilot? If really needed, rated MS could land it >> <behlin...@gmail.com> escribió en el mensajenews:0228580b-02bd-4419-953e-9f67a631af37@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com... >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > If really needed, rated MS could land it And in a real pinch, an unrated MS could sit in the front seat, leave the DAP in AUTO, and just lower the gear and deploy the chute at the right time. As a bonus, the Autoland DTO would finally be completed. Of course, that only works until something goes wrong. That's when the CDR and PLT really earn their paychecks. Looking at the various interviews done today, there was a lot of "concerns" from the media about Hans' health, his ability to do the EVA tomorrow etc etc. Right now, there is an interview with CBS, and the question came up again. The commander responded to it (by essentially not answering the question), even though Hans was right behind him. The media person insisted and finally the CDR agreed to let Hans reply. Seems to me that NASA should have better internal policies on how to deal with this. It seems pretty easy to me: NASA should simply state that they don't let anyone do an EVA unless they are at 100% health, and if they still haven't fully acclimated to 0g, they use backup plans. And the fact that Hans is scheduled to go to an EVA tomorrrow means that is is now back at 100% health and can safely perform his EVA tasks. Such a statement doesn't violate medical confidentiality. And it still gives an authoritative answer that underlines the fact that NASA doesn't take risks with health and ever minor "discomforts" and that whatever Hans had early on is now totally gone and no longer a concern. These shananigans to try to NOT reply to the media questions only lead to more speculation. > It seems pretty easy to me: NASA should simply state that they don't > let anyone do an EVA unless they are at 100% health, What is 100% health? I don't think there's a person alive that could make that claim. > Of course, that only works until something goes wrong. That's when the > CDR and PLT really earn their paychecks. Can you give some examples of things "going wrong"? Obviously a situation like Columbia is way past the end of that scale, but I'm curious about the more benign levels of wrongness.  SignatureThis 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 >> Of course, that only works until something goes wrong. That's when the >> CDR and PLT really earn their paychecks. > >Can you give some examples of things "going wrong"? Obviously a situation >like Columbia is way past the end of that scale, but I'm curious about the >more benign levels of wrongness. The STS-9 and STS-39 landings come to mind... Brian >>> Of course, that only works until something goes wrong. That's when the >>> CDR and PLT really earn their paychecks. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Brian Which were the problems in these flights? Can you explain, please? thnks > >>> Of course, that only works until something goes wrong. That's when the > >>> CDR and PLT really earn their paychecks. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Which were the problems in these flights? Can you explain, please? > thnks http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-9/mission-sts-9.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-9 Guidance computer issues, and a fire, and sounds like Young saved everyone's bacon. Couldn't find what happened on 39? -- Todd H. http://toddh.net/ > > >>> Of course, that only works until something goes wrong. That's when the > > >>> CDR and PLT really earn their paychecks. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > -- > Todd H. http://toddh.net/ it was 37 >> > The STS-9 and STS-39 landings come to mind... >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Couldn't find what happened on 39? Sorry. STS-37. Landed short of the runway due to botched wind forecast. Brian Bond stelde dit idée voor : >>> to >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Could any MS fly and land the shuttle if something happen to Cmdr and Pilot? AFAIK: Yes. But the chance of anything happening with CDR & PLT is very small. I think it is also mandatory for any crew to be able to fly home the shuttle. André > I think it is also mandatory for any crew to be able to fly home the > shuttle. not true I think this has been discussed in a previous thread, but my take is this. Firstly, to preserve confidentiality about medical matters, whchi we all have as far as I'm aware, only the person involved can give permission to allow the media to know. Now some celebrities do 'leak' this sort of thing as lets face it, publicity is their life. This is not generally so of Astronauts. Also the time when you are suffering is not the best time to decide if you want the world to know that you have covered the mid deck of a Shuttle in a Technicolor yawn! As to the subject of serious illness. I'd imagine that if it was thought a safer bet was to return him straight away, this would be done as soon as it could reasonably be achieved, but its not a five minute operation so in most cases, stabilisation on the station or shuttle would seem to be the best approach. Death is a whole other subject, and I'd imagine there are protocols to follow. For example, if someone dies as a result of an unforeseen problem while on eva, they would be retrieved, but if they floated off, what then? I have no idea what the rules say about bodies, but I don't think they could keep them on a station except for a short time. Brian SignatureBrian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > Does medical privacy apply to spacemen? I would think their celebrity > status would preclude any privileges of medical anonymity, at least as to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Per maggiori informazioni |For more info > https://www.mixmaster.it >I think this has been discussed in a previous thread, but my take is this. > >Firstly, to preserve confidentiality about medical matters, whchi we all >have as far as I'm aware, only the person involved can give permission to >allow the media to know. Now some celebrities do 'leak' this sort of thing >as lets face it, publicity is their life. Both myself and my wife work in the medical field, and HIPPA privacy rules are quite clear and apply to NASA and its employees, unless he's signed a waiver to allow the release of information they are breaking their own federal rules and the penalties are quite significant to the ones that do the rule breaking including large fines and loss of jobs. Given the above, I wouldn't expect much more details on the subject from NASA or anyone else. Signature===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 677 0766 President +1 206 374 6482 FAX Netwrx Consulting Inc. Jackson, WI USA http://www.netwrx1.com georgek@netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 > Both myself and my wife work in the medical field, and HIPPA privacy > rules are quite clear and apply to NASA and its employees, unless he's > signed a waiver to allow the release of information they are breaking > their own federal rules I don't think anyone suggested NASA reveal personal details without the person's permission. Secondly, consider hockey or football players. The team has no problems releasing gory details about a player's medical condition when said player won't be able to participate in a game. (or when injured during a game). I would consider space missions to be a similar case. A crewmember was incomodated and had to be replaced by a standby player. It is no big deal. The big deal is NASA trying to hide it. Astronauts could sign a waiver that would allow NASA to reveal certain common conditions (like space sickness) that occur during flight. Document could also grant the right to release information for other conditions upon getting verbal agreement from crewmember via air to ground. (since signing documents in space isn't practical). > Astronauts could sign a waiver that would allow NASA to reveal certain > common conditions (like space sickness) that occur during flight. He doesn't work for NASA. Anthony Anthony Frost stelde de volgende uitleg voor : >> Astronauts could sign a waiver that would allow NASA to reveal certain >> common conditions (like space sickness) that occur during flight. > > He doesn't work for NASA. > > Anthony ESA has probably the same rules like NASA regarding medical issues. André >Anthony Frost stelde de volgende uitleg voor : >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> Anthony >ESA has probably the same rules like NASA regarding medical issues. As you point out, a waiver would likely need to be signed in any case. Perhaps they didn't offer one, didn't think of it or he simply didn't choose to sign it. It is after all his right to privacy, and even today in sports they are starting to release fewer and fewer details than what was done in the past. Take for example the latest Super Bowl with I believe Tom Brady and the "boot" he wore after the AFC Championship game...very little details were initially released by the team or him. Signature===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 677 0766 President +1 206 374 6482 FAX Netwrx Consulting Inc. Jackson, WI USA http://www.netwrx1.com georgek@netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 John Doe <jdoe@doe.org> wrote in news:47b3b9cb$0$22059$c3e8da3 @news.astraweb.com: >> Both myself and my wife work in the medical field, and HIPPA privacy >> rules are quite clear and apply to NASA and its employees, unless he's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > player won't be able to participate in a game. (or when injured during a > game). You're trying to equate an athletic injury to an illness? That dog won't hunt. > I would consider space missions to be a similar case. A crewmember was > incomodated and had to be replaced by a standby player. It is no big > deal. The big deal is NASA trying to hide it. There is a big difference between trying to hide something and not commenting on an issue. NASA did not try to hide anything. > Astronauts could sign a waiver that would allow NASA to reveal certain > common conditions (like space sickness) that occur during flight. > Document could also grant the right to release information for other > conditions upon getting verbal agreement from crewmember via air to > ground. (since signing documents in space isn't practical). What part of "it's none of your business" do you not understand? Signature--- there should be a "sig" here > What part of "it's none of your business" do you not understand? If it is none of my business, why then does NASA TV exist ? Why does NASA hold mission status briefings to the press at regular intervals ? Why does it make the NASA TV feed available to any/all networks to include snippet of NASA's acheivements in their local newscast ? Why then does NASA go to great lengths to organise interviews of the crews while in space with the earth media ? This is very much a public exercise. And while on orbit, the astronauts are public figures with their activities broadcasted on NASA TV. So when NASA announces that an EVA is being postponed and crew switched, how it handles the questions from the media is important. It would be far simpler to just confirm the guy has space sickness and that it will pass and he will be in perfect shape in a day or two rather than to try to hide this condition and even go as far as the CDR not wanting to pass the microphone to the Hans fellow to let him answer questions about him. (the CDR eventually relented when the media person insisted to get an answer from Hans and not the CDR. While on the shuttle/station, it is very different than while still on the ground. When one future ISS crewmember got "sick" he was replaced at last minuted by Don Petit. NASA was correct to just announce he was being replaced for private reasons. At that point in the "mission" the future crewmember was not yet a public figure. But from launch day to landing, the crews are very much public figures and NASA needs to treat this differently. > It would be far simpler to just confirm the guy has space sickness > and that it will pass and he will be in perfect shape in a day or > two rather than to try to hide this condition Look, I think it's fairly obvious that he shat himself. You can understand why he wouldn't want to talk about it, can't you? > > What part of "it's none of your business" do you not understand? > > If it is none of my business, why then does NASA TV exist ? Has nothing to with ones privacy >Why does > NASA hold mission status briefings to the press at regular intervals ? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > This is very much a public exercise. And while on orbit, the astronauts > are public figures with their activities broadcasted on NASA TV. It doesn't matter. It is the law, period. Nobody has to reveal medical information. Being a public figure does not automatically mean that have no rights > But from launch day to landing, the crews are very much public figures > and NASA needs to treat this differently. Again, NASA can't. it is a law John Doe <jdoe@doe.org> wrote in news:47b45651$0$10302$c3e8da3 @news.astraweb.com: >> What part of "it's none of your business" do you not understand? [snip of rambling protestation of medical privacy] You could of just said that you refuse to accept that it's none of your business. Sorry but another person's medical condition really is none of your business. There are no if's, and's, or but's here. Signature--- there should be a "sig" here > Sorry but another person's medical condition really is none of your business. > There are no if's, and's, or but's here. How come then the President of the USA makes a point of allowing his "clean bill of health" to be released to the public after his yearly checkups ? How come then when that Cheney war criminal had his heart problems, your nation "had a right to know" about them ? Note that nobody has stated that NASA should make public medical condition without approval by the person/astronaut. When there is a space-to-ground interview with Hans present, and the reporter asked Hans a question, it looked really bad to have the CDR refuse to hand over the mike to Hans and instead deflect the question. (But when the reporter insisted on getting an answer from Hans, the CDR reluctantly agreed to hand over the mike and let Hans answer a question about himself). Preventing/sheltering Hans from questions makes it look like Hans isn't really back to 100% health again and that NASA is trying to hide something. When the President of the USA entity nearly died upon eating a pretzel, or when he barfed at a state dinner, this was made public and there were no "privacy" issues about it. NASA is the one that chooses to make a shuttle mission highly public. So when a crewmember is incommodated to the point of causing a schedule change (which NASA announces), then people want to know why. Now, if it were some venerial disease in some private location that flaired up, I would agree that NASA can just state that he is having a private health issue which allows him to do his duties in the shuttle/station, but not in an EVA. But when the health issue is related to space travel (eg: space sickness), then there is a case for making it public since it is a physical condition that was caused by his job. (aka: employer set working conditions that made the crewmember sick). Because space sickness can inflict anyone is what appears to be random pattern, and because future space travellers may be impacted by this, it would be of general interest for NASA or astronauts to describe exactly what happens, how it goes away (gradually or very fast) etc etc. Since NASA is there to study how humans behave in space, keeping the space sickness experiences so private is a bit silly. They discuss loss of calcium in bones etc, but not space sickness. > How come then the President of the USA makes a point of allowing his > "clean bill of health" to be released to the public after his yearly > checkups ? Because HE wants to > How come then when that Cheney had his heart problems, your > nation "had a right to know" about them ? Because he is the VP and not just another occupation like astronaut > When the President of the USA entity nearly died upon eating a pretzel, > or when he barfed at a state dinner, this was made public and there were > no "privacy" issues about it. Not the same thing > NASA is the one that chooses to make a shuttle mission highly public. So > when a crewmember is incommodated to the point of causing a schedule > change (which NASA announces), then people want to know why. so what > Because space sickness can inflict anyone is what appears to be random > pattern, and because future space travellers may be impacted by this, it > would be of general interest for NASA or astronauts to describe exactly > what happens, how it goes away (gradually or very fast) etc etc. They do take interest in it. It is not ignored and the data is corrected > Since NASA is there to study how humans behave in space, keeping the > space sickness experiences so private is a bit silly. They discuss loss > of calcium in bones etc, but not space sickness. The only part kept private, is who is affect. The data on the number astronauts affected and how is publically available also, since you are not a US citizen, none of your business what we do >> Sorry but another person's medical condition really is none of your >> business. There are no if's, and's, or but's here. > > How come then the President of the USA makes a point of allowing his > "clean bill of health" to be released to the public after his yearly > checkups ? He is being a politician and telling the public that he is in good health. It is entirely his choice. > How come then when that Cheney war criminal had his heart problems, your > nation "had a right to know" about them ? Again, he's a politician and he is informing the public that he can continue to serve as VP. > Note that nobody has stated that NASA should make public medical > condition without approval by the person/astronaut. Bullshit. You have said that astronauts should be required to sign a waiver to release medical info during a flight. > When there is a space-to-ground interview with Hans present, and the > reporter asked Hans a question, it looked really bad to have the CDR > refuse to hand over the mike to Hans and instead deflect the question. > (But when the reporter insisted on getting an answer from Hans, the CDR > reluctantly agreed to hand over the mike and let Hans answer a question > about himself). So? > Preventing/sheltering Hans from questions makes it look like Hans isn't > really back to 100% health again and that NASA is trying to hide > something. No, it didn't look like that at all. It looked like the CDR was doing his job to intercept inappropriate questions. > When the President of the USA entity nearly died upon eating a pretzel, > or when he barfed at a state dinner, this was made public and there were > no "privacy" issues about it. Please stop confusing politics with personal medical privileges. > NASA is the one that chooses to make a shuttle mission highly public. So > when a crewmember is incommodated to the point of causing a schedule > change (which NASA announces), then people want to know why. Some people may want to know. Their "want" does not equal their "right." Can you even begin to accept the difference? I doubt it otherwise you would just shut-up. > Now, if it were some venerial disease in some private location that > flaired up, I would agree that NASA can just state that he is having a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > public since it is a physical condition that was caused by his job. > (aka: employer set working conditions that made the crewmember sick). No there is not a case for making it public. NASA does not create the conditions while on orbit. Sorry you don't understand that. > Because space sickness can inflict anyone is what appears to be random > pattern, and because future space travellers may be impacted by this, it > would be of general interest for NASA or astronauts to describe exactly > what happens, how it goes away (gradually or very fast) etc etc. Yes, this has been published. Check the journals. > Since NASA is there to study how humans behave in space, keeping the > space sickness experiences so private is a bit silly. They discuss loss > of calcium in bones etc, but not space sickness. Your fixation on the topic is beyond silly. It is obviously an obsession. Frankly you can harp on the topic all you want but you won't change a thing because no one with even a little bit of sense will agree with you. Signature--- there should be a "sig" here > Some people may want to know. Their "want" does not equal their "right." > Can you even begin to accept the difference? I doubt it otherwise you would > just shut-up. It isn't about that at all. It is about proper handling of the media. My point is that NASA's policy to not discuss simple medical issues are resulting in media puttting a hell of a lot more speculation/attention on the matter than necessary. Being open about space sickness on a regular business and not trying to hide it would make such events about as interesting as a waste dump from the shuttle (from the media's point of view). The media get insterested exactly because they see NASA desperately trying to hide something. So if waivers were signed, and a crew member got space sickness that lasted long enough to force a schedule change in the mission, NASA could just announce it as a factual item, then announce when the crewmember is back to 100%, let him go on the interviews and discuss it and be done with it. No mystery, no story. No attempt to hide information, no media trying to hunt this hidden information. >> Some people may want to know. Their "want" does not equal their >> "right." Can you even begin to accept the difference? I doubt it >> otherwise you would just shut-up. > > It isn't about that at all. It is about proper handling of the media. No it is not. Try to understand that just because the media wants to know that it doesn't mean they (or anybody else) has the right to know. > My point is that NASA's policy to not discuss simple medical issues are > resulting in media puttting a hell of a lot more speculation/attention > on the matter than necessary. Being open about space sickness on a > regular business and not trying to hide it would make such events about > as interesting as a waste dump from the shuttle (from the media's point > of view). No, that wasn't your point. You demanded that personal medical detail be realeased. You argued that it was your right to know even though it was a personal medical condition. > The media get insterested exactly because they see NASA desperately > trying to hide something. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > with it. No mystery, no story. No attempt to hide information, no media > trying to hunt this hidden information. So what? There was no mystery, no story, no attempt to hide information. It's none of your business. Nobody hid anything. Get over it and move on. Signature--- there should be a "sig" here >What part of "it's none of your business" do you not understand? But it is our (at least taxpayer) business to understand NASA policies to see if they make sense. For example, I believe NASA has a policy that space sickness does not disqualify an astronaut. Is this a good policy? Should NASA be spending more on identifying who suffers and why? It clearly has serious consequences - each on-orbit day costs about $25M. What about a rescue mission, where time might be even more critical? Should there be a rule that rescue mission astronauts are those that have never had a problem? How about early mission spacewalks? Would such a rule even help? Perhaps astronauts have this problem often, but just tough it out until one time it's too serious and they barf? Maybe NASA needs a more objective way to tell how close someone is to being incapacitated? While I understand the medical privacy issues, these are serious and legitimate policy questions. In traditional medical research, this conflict is solved in two ways - by doing large studies where the individuals are anonymous, or by waivers of patient confidentiality so everyone can see the data. The large number solution will not work for spaceflight yet, so some policy like "Space sickness will not disqualify you, but you must be willing to report it and discuss it" could make sense. Lou Scheffer > But it is our (at least taxpayer) business to understand NASA policies to > see if they make sense. For example, I believe NASA has a policy that > space sickness does not disqualify an astronaut. Is this a good policy? Yes, because of belwo > Should NASA be spending more on identifying who suffers and why? SAS affects around 50% of the population and there is no preflight indicator > clearly has serious consequences - each on-orbit day costs about $25M. > What about a rescue mission, where time might be even more critical? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Maybe NASA needs a more objective way to tell how close someone is > to being incapacitated? He wasn't incapacitated. It was a precaution. > While I understand the medical privacy issues, these are serious and > legitimate policy questions. In traditional medical research, this [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > disqualify you, but you must be willing to report it and discuss it" > could make sense. The astronauts do report and discuss it. With their doctors like they are suppose to. This wasn't the issue. The crew held private conversations with the ground (doctor). The media is making an "issue" of these private conversations. all crews do report the occurrences and the data is being collected. Also every mission has medical objectives to research SAS > But it is our (at least taxpayer) business to understand NASA policies to > see if they make sense. For example, I believe NASA has a policy that > space sickness does not disqualify an astronaut. Is this a good policy? > Should NASA be spending more on identifying who suffers and why? It > clearly has serious consequences - each on-orbit day costs about $25M. That is why NASA increased the minimum crew size to 5 in the 1980's. Just for this reason >>What part of "it's none of your business" do you not understand? > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Lou Scheffer So you don't accept that another person's medical condition is none of your business. You aren't involved in the processes at any level but you still "know" it's your business. That is wrong. What would lou gain by knowing whether the guy had a SAS, indigestion, severe gas, or perhaps a bit of anxiety? Absolutely nothing except voyeristic excitement at someone elses misfortune. Grow up just a little bit (or maybe a lot) and accept that we're all human. Accept the consequences of that humanity and move on. Or don't accept it and continue to rant about things that are none of your business. If you want to make sure your taxes are well spent then apply your energy in the political arena where it is appropriate. Don't even pretend to claim a right to micro-manage NASA just because you pay taxes. Signature--- there should be a "sig" here |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.