text:
ALL#ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
Human spaceflight (6770 views - Astronomy & Astrology)
Human spaceflight (also referred to as crewed spaceflight or manned spaceflight) is space travel with a crew or passengers aboard the spacecraft. Spacecraft carrying people may be operated directly, by human crew, or it may be either remotely operated from ground stations on Earth or be autonomous, able to carry out a specific mission with no human involvement. The first human spaceflight was launched by the Soviet Union on 12 April 1961 as a part of the Vostok program, with cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin aboard. Humans have been continuously present in space for 18 years and 10 days on the International Space Station. All early human spaceflight was crewed, where at least some of the passengers acted to carry out tasks of piloting or operating the spacecraft. After 2015, several human-capable spacecraft are being explicitly designed with the ability to operate autonomously. Since the retirement of the US Space Shuttle in 2011, only Russia and China have maintained human spaceflight capability with the Soyuz program and Shenzhou program. Currently, all expeditions to the International Space Station use Soyuz vehicles, which remain attached to the station to allow quick return if needed. The United States is developing commercial crew transportation to facilitate domestic access to ISS and low Earth orbit, as well as the Orion vehicle for beyond-low Earth orbit applications. While spaceflight has typically been a government-directed activity, commercial spaceflight has gradually been taking on a greater role. The first private human spaceflight took place on 21 June 2004, when SpaceShipOne conducted a suborbital flight, and a number of non-governmental companies have been working to develop a space tourism industry. NASA has also played a role to stimulate private spaceflight through programs such as Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) and Commercial Crew Development (CCDev). With its 2011 budget proposals released in 2010, the Obama administration moved towards a model where commercial companies would supply NASA with transportation services of both people and cargo transport to low Earth orbit. The vehicles used for these services could then serve both NASA and potential commercial customers. Commercial resupply of ISS began two years after the retirement of the Shuttle, and commercial crew launches could begin by 2018.
PARTcloud - spacecraft
More PARTcloud parts
Explanation by Hotspot Model
Show in PARTcloud
Human spaceflight
"Space traveler" redirects here. For other uses, see Space traveler (disambiguation).
Apollo 11 crewmember Buzz Aldrin on the Moon, 1969
International Space Station crewmember Tracy Caldwell Dyson views the Earth, 2010
Space Shuttle Discovery heads into space with a crew aboard, STS-121 in 2006
Inside a space suit on the Canadarm, 1993
Human spaceflight (also referred to as crewed spaceflight or manned spaceflight) is space travel with a crew or passengers aboard the spacecraft. Spacecraft carrying people may be operated directly, by human crew, or it may be either remotely operated from ground stations on Earth or be autonomous, able to carry out a specific mission with no human involvement.
The first human spaceflight was launched by the Soviet Union on 12 April 1961 as a part of the Vostok program, with cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin aboard. Humans have been continuously present in space for 18 years and 11 days on the International Space Station. All early human spaceflight was crewed, where at least some of the passengers acted to carry out tasks of piloting or operating the spacecraft. After 2015, several human-capable spacecraft are being explicitly designed with the ability to operate autonomously.
Since the retirement of the US Space Shuttle in 2011, only Russia and China have maintained human spaceflight capability with the Soyuz program and Shenzhou program. Currently, all expeditions to the International Space Station use Soyuz vehicles, which remain attached to the station to allow quick return if needed. The United States is developing commercial crew transportation to facilitate domestic access to ISS and low Earth orbit, as well as the Orion vehicle for beyond-low Earth orbit applications.
While spaceflight has typically been a government-directed activity, commercial spaceflight has gradually been taking on a greater role. The first private human spaceflight took place on 21 June 2004, when SpaceShipOne conducted a suborbital flight, and a number of non-governmental companies have been working to develop a space tourism industry. NASA has also played a role to stimulate private spaceflight through programs such as Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) and Commercial Crew Development (CCDev). With its 2011 budget proposals released in 2010,[1] the Obama administration moved towards a model where commercial companies would supply NASA with transportation services of both people and cargo transport to low Earth orbit. The vehicles used for these services could then serve both NASA and potential commercial customers. Commercial resupply of ISS began two years after the retirement of the Shuttle, and commercial crew launches could begin by 2018.[2]
1.1 Cold War era
1.2 US / Russian cooperation
1.4 Abandoned programs of other nations
1.5 United States post-Space Shuttle gap
1.6 Commercial private spaceflight
3 Space programs
3.1 Current programs
3.2 Planned future programs
4 Passenger travel via spacecraft
5 National spacefaring attempts
6 Safety concerns
6.1 Environmental hazards
6.1.1 Life support
6.1.2 Medical issues
6.1.2.1 Microgravity
6.1.2.2 Radiation
6.1.2.3 Isolation
6.2 Mechanical hazards
6.2.1 Launch
6.2.2 Reentry and landing
6.2.3 Artificial atmosphere
6.2.4 Reliability
6.3 Fatality risk
Main article: History of spaceflight
Main article: Space Race
Human spaceflight capability was first developed during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union (USSR), which developed the first intercontinental ballistic missile rockets to deliver nuclear weapons. These rockets were large enough to be adapted to carry the first artificial satellites into low Earth orbit. After the first satellites were launched in 1957 and 1958, the US worked on Project Mercury to launch men singly into orbit, while the USSR secretly pursued the Vostok program to accomplish the same thing. The USSR launched the first human in space, Yuri Gagarin, into a single orbit in Vostok 1 on a Vostok 3KA rocket, on 12 April 1961. The US launched its first astronaut, Alan Shepard, on a suborbital flight aboard Freedom 7 on a Mercury-Redstone rocket, on 5 May 1961. Unlike Gagarin, Shepard manually controlled his spacecraft's attitude, and landed inside it. The first American in orbit was John Glenn aboard Friendship 7, launched 20 February 1962 on a Mercury-Atlas rocket. The USSR launched five more cosmonauts in Vostok capsules, including the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova aboard Vostok 6 on 16 June 1963. The US launched a total of two astronauts in suborbital flight and four into orbit through 1963.
US President John F. Kennedy raised the stakes of the Space Race by setting the goal of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely by the end of the 1960s.[3] The US started the three-man Apollo program in 1961 to accomplish this, launched by the Saturn family of launch vehicles, and the interim two-man Project Gemini in 1962, which flew 10 missions launched by Titan II rockets in 1965 and 1966. Gemini's objective was to support Apollo by developing American orbital spaceflight experience and techniques to be used in the Moon mission.[4]
Meanwhile, the USSR remained silent about their intentions to send humans to the Moon, and proceeded to stretch the limits of their single-pilot Vostok capsule into a two- or three-person Voskhod capsule to compete with Gemini. They were able to launch two orbital flights in 1964 and 1965 and achieved the first spacewalk, made by Alexei Leonov on Voskhod 2 on 8 March 1965. But Voskhod did not have Gemini's capability to maneuver in orbit, and the program was terminated. The US Gemini flights did not accomplish the first spacewalk, but overcame the early Soviet lead by performing several spacewalks and solving the problem of astronaut fatigue caused by overcoming the lack of gravity, demonstrating up to two weeks endurance in a human spaceflight, and the first space rendezvous and dockings of spacecraft.
The US succeeded in developing the Saturn V rocket necessary to send the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon, and sent Frank Borman, James Lovell, and William Anders into 10 orbits around the Moon in Apollo 8 in December 1968. In July 1969, Apollo 11 accomplished Kennedy's goal by landing Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the Moon 21 July and returning them safely on 24 July along with Command Module pilot Michael Collins. A total of six Apollo missions landed 12 men to walk on the Moon through 1972, half of which drove electric powered vehicles on the surface. The crew of Apollo 13, Lovell, Jack Swigert, and Fred Haise, survived a catastrophic in-flight spacecraft failure and returned to Earth safely without landing on the Moon.
Meanwhile, the USSR secretly pursued human lunar orbiting and landing programs. They successfully developed the three-person Soyuz spacecraft for use in the lunar programs, but failed to develop the N1 rocket necessary for a human landing, and discontinued the lunar programs in 1974.[5] On losing the Moon race, they concentrated on the development of space stations, using the Soyuz as a ferry to take cosmonauts to and from the stations. They started with a series of Salyut sortie stations from 1971 to 1986.
After the Apollo program, the US launched the Skylab sortie space station in 1973, manning it for 171 days with three crews aboard Apollo spacecraft. President Richard Nixon and Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev negotiated an easing of relations known as détente, an easing of Cold War tensions. As part of this, they negotiated the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, in which an Apollo spacecraft carrying a special docking adapter module rendezvoused and docked with Soyuz 19 in 1975. The American and Russian crews shook hands in space, but the purpose of the flight was purely diplomatic and symbolic.
Nixon appointed his Vice President Spiro Agnew to head a Space Task Group in 1969 to recommend follow-on human spaceflight programs after Apollo. The group proposed an ambitious Space Transportation System based on a reusable Space Shuttle which consisted of a winged, internally fueled orbiter stage burning liquid hydrogen, launched by a similar, but larger kerosene-fueled booster stage, each equipped with airbreathing jet engines for powered return to a runway at the Kennedy Space Center launch site. Other components of the system included a permanent modular space station, reusable space tug and nuclear interplanetary ferry, leading to a human expedition to Mars as early as 1986, or as late as 2000, depending on the level of funding allocated. However, Nixon knew the American political climate would not support Congressional funding for such an ambition, and killed proposals for all but the Shuttle, possibly to be followed by the space station. Plans for the Shuttle were scaled back to reduce development risk, cost, and time, replacing the piloted flyback booster with two reusable solid rocket boosters, and the smaller orbiter would use an expendable external propellant tank to feed its hydrogen-fueled main engines. The orbiter would have to make unpowered landings.
The two nations continued to compete rather than cooperate in space, as the US turned to developing the Space Shuttle and planning the space station, dubbed Freedom. The USSR launched three Almaz military sortie stations from 1973 to 1977, disguised as Salyuts. They followed Salyut with the development of Mir, the first modular, semi-permanent space station, the construction of which took place from 1986 to 1996. Mir orbited at an altitude of 354 kilometers (191 nautical miles), at a 51.6° inclination. It was occupied for 4,592 days, and made a controlled reentry in 2001.
The Space Shuttle started flying in 1981, but the US Congress failed to approve sufficient funds to make Freedom a reality. A fleet of four shuttles was built: Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, and Atlantis. A fifth shuttle, Endeavour, was built to replace Challenger, which was destroyed in an accident during launch that killed 7 astronauts on 28 January 1986. Twenty-two Shuttle flights carried a European Space Agency sortie space station called Spacelab in the payload bay from 1983 to 1998.[6]
The USSR copied the reusable Space Shuttle orbiter, which it called Buran. It was designed to be launched into orbit by the expendable Energia rocket, and capable of robotic orbital flight and landing. Unlike the US Shuttle, Buran had no main rocket engines, but like the Shuttle used its orbital maneuvering engines to perform its final orbital insertion. A single unmanned orbital test flight was successfully made in November 1988. A second test flight was planned by 1993, but the program was cancelled due to lack of funding and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Two more orbiters were never completed, and the first one was destroyed in a hangar roof collapse in May 2002.
US / Russian cooperation
The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 brought an end to the Cold War and opened the door to true cooperation between the US and Russia. The Soviet Soyuz and Mir programs were taken over by the Russian Federal Space Agency, now known as the Roscosmos State Corporation. The Shuttle-Mir Program included American Space Shuttles visiting the Mir space station, Russian cosmonauts flying on the Shuttle, and an American astronaut flying aboard a Soyuz spacecraft for long-duration expeditions aboard Mir.
In 1993, President Bill Clinton secured Russia's cooperation in converting the planned Space Station Freedom into the International Space Station (ISS). Construction of the station began in 1998. The station orbits at an altitude of 409 kilometers (221 nmi) and an inclination of 51.65°.
The Space Shuttle was retired in 2011 after 135 orbital flights, several of which helped assemble, supply, and crew the ISS. Columbia was destroyed in another accident during reentry, which killed 7 astronauts on 1 February 2003.
After Russia's launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957, Chairman Mao Zedong intended to place a Chinese satellite in orbit by 1959 to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China (PRC),[7] However, China did not successfully launch its first satellite until 24 April 1970. Mao and Premier Zhou Enlai decided on 14 July 1967, that the PRC should not be left behind, and started China's own human spaceflight program.[8] The first attempt, the Shuguang spacecraft copied from the US Gemini, was cancelled on 13 May 1972.
China later designed the Shenzhou spacecraft resembling the Russian Soyuz, and became the third nation to achieve independent human spaceflight capability by launching Yang Liwei on a 21-hour flight aboard Shenzhou 5 on 15 October 2003. China launched the Tiangong-1 space station on 29 September 2011, and two sortie missions to it: Shenzhou 9 16–29 June 2012, with China's first female astronaut Liu Yang; and Shenzhou 10, 13–26 June 2013. The station was retired on 21 March 2016 and remains in a 363-kilometer (196-nautical-mile), 42.77° inclination orbit.
Abandoned programs of other nations
The European Space Agency began development in 1987 of the Hermes spaceplane, to be launched on the Ariane 5 expendable launch vehicle. The project was cancelled in 1992, when it became clear that neither cost nor performance goals could be achieved. No Hermes shuttles were ever built.
Japan began development in the 1980s of the HOPE-X experimental spaceplane, to be launched on its H-IIA expendable launch vehicle. A string of failures in 1998 led to funding reduction, and the project's cancellation in 2003.
United States post-Space Shuttle gap
Under the Bush administration, the Constellation Program included plans for retiring the Shuttle program and replacing it with the capability for spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit. In the 2011 United States federal budget, the Obama administration cancelled Constellation for being over budget and behind schedule while not innovating and investing in critical new technologies.[9] For beyond low Earth orbit human spaceflight NASA is developing the Orion spacecraft to be launched by the Space Launch System. Under the Commercial Crew Development plan, NASA will rely on transportation services provided by the private sector to reach low Earth orbit, such as SpaceX's Falcon 9/Dragon V2, Sierra Nevada Corporation's Dream Chaser, or Boeing's CST-100. The period between the retirement of the shuttle in 2011 and the initial operational capability of new systems in 2017, similar to the gap between the end of Apollo in 1975 and the first space shuttle flight in 1981, is referred to by a presidential Blue Ribbon Committee as the U.S. human spaceflight gap.[10]
Commercial private spaceflight
Since the early 2000s, a variety of private spaceflight ventures have been undertaken. Several of the companies, including Blue Origin, SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, and Sierra Nevada have explicit plans to advance human spaceflight. As of 2016[update], all four of those companies have development programs underway to fly commercial passengers.
A commercial suborbital spacecraft aimed at the space tourism market is being developed by Virgin Galactic called SpaceshipTwo, and could reach space around 2018.[11] Blue Origin has begun a multi-year test program of their New Shepard vehicle and carried out six successful uncrewed test flights in 2015–2016. Blue Origin plan to fly "test passengers" in Q2 2017, and initiate commercial flights in 2018.[12][13]
SpaceX and Boeing are both developing passenger-capable orbital space capsules as of 2015, planning to fly NASA astronauts to the International Space Station by 2018. SpaceX will be carrying passengers on Dragon 2 launched on a Falcon 9 launch vehicle. Boeing will be doing it with their CST-100 launched on a United Launch Alliance Atlas V launch vehicle.[14] Development funding for these orbital-capable technologies has been provided by a mix of government and private funds, with SpaceX providing a greater portion of total development funding for this human-carrying capability from private investment.[15][16] There have been no public announcements of commercial offerings for orbital flights from either company, although both companies are planning some flights with their own private, not NASA, astronauts on board.
Yuri Gagarin became the first human to orbit the Earth on April 12, 1961.
Alan Shepard became the first American to reach space on Mercury-Redstone 3 on May 5, 1961.
John Glenn became the first American to orbit the Earth on February 20, 1962.
Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman to orbit the Earth on June 16, 1963.
Joseph A. Walker became the first human to pilot a spaceplane, the X-15 Flight 90, into space on July 19, 1963.
Alexey Leonov became the first human to leave a spacecraft in orbit on March 18, 1965.
Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, and William Anders became the first humans to travel beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) Dec 21–27, 1968, when the Apollo 8 mission took them to 10 orbits around the Moon and back.
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first humans to land on the Moon on July 20, 1969.
Svetlana Savitskaya became the first woman to walk in space on July 25, 1984.
Sally Ride became the first American woman in space in 1983. Eileen Collins was the first female shuttle pilot, and with shuttle mission STS-93 in 1999 she became the first woman to command a U.S. spacecraft.
The longest single human spaceflight is that of Valeri Polyakov, who left Earth on 8 January 1994, and did not return until 22 March 1995 (a total of 437 days 17 h 58 min 16 s). Sergei Krikalyov has spent the most time of anyone in space, 803 days, 9 hours, and 39 minutes altogether. The longest period of continuous human presence in space is 18 years and 11 days on the International Space Station, exceeding the previous record of almost 10 years (or 3,634 days) held by Mir, spanning the launch of Soyuz TM-8 on 5 September 1989 to the landing of Soyuz TM-29 on 28 August 1999.
Yang Liwei became the first human to orbit the Earth as part of the Chinese manned space program on October 15, 2003.
For many years, only the USSR (later Russia) and the United States had their own astronauts. Citizens of other nations flew in space, beginning with the flight of Vladimir Remek, a Czech, on a Soviet spacecraft on 2 March 1978, in the Interkosmos programme. As of 2010[update], citizens from 38 nations (including space tourists) have flown in space aboard Soviet, American, Russian, and Chinese spacecraft.
Human spaceflight programs have been conducted by the former Soviet Union and current Russian Federation, the United States, the People's Republic of China and by private spaceflight company Scaled Composites.
Currently have human spaceflight programs.
Confirmed and dated plans for human spaceflight programs.
Plans for human spaceflight on the simplest form (suborbital spaceflight, etc.).
Plans for human spaceflight on the extreme form (space stations, etc.).
Once had official plans for human spaceflight programs, but have since been abandoned.
Space vehicles are spacecraft used for transportation between the Earth's surface and outer space, or between locations in outer space. The following space vehicles and spaceports are currently used for launching human spaceflights:
Soyuz program (USSR/Russia): spacecraft on Soyuz launch vehicle, from Baikonur Cosmodrome; 129 orbital flights since 1967, including one in-flight abort which failed to reach orbit, as of July 2016[update]
Shenzhou program (Chinese): spacecraft on Long March launch vehicle, from Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center; 5 flights since 2003, as of July 2016[update]
The following space stations are currently maintained in Earth orbit for human occupation:
International Space Station (US and Russia) assembled in orbit: altitude 409 kilometers (221 nautical miles), 51.65° inclination; crews transported by Soyuz spacecraft
Tiangong-2 (Chinese): altitude 392 kilometers (212 nautical miles); crews transported by Shenzhou spacecraft
Numerous private companies attempted human spaceflight programs in an effort to win the $10 million Ansari X Prize. The first private human spaceflight took place on 21 June 2004, when SpaceShipOne conducted a suborbital flight. SpaceShipOne captured the prize on 4 October 2004, when it accomplished two consecutive flights within one week. SpaceShipTwo, launching from the carrier aircraft White Knight Two, is planned to conduct regular suborbital space tourism.[17]
Most of the time, the only humans in space are those aboard the ISS, whose crew of six spends up to six months at a time in low Earth orbit.
NASA and ESA use the term "human spaceflight" to refer to their programs of launching people into space. These endeavors have also been referred to as "manned space missions," though because of gender specificity this is no longer official parlance according to NASA style guides.[18]
Planned future programs
India has declared it will send humans to space on its orbital vehicle Gaganyaan by 2022. The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) began work on this project in 2006.[19] The objective is to carry a crew of two to low Earth orbit (LEO) and return them safely for a water-landing at a predefined landing zone. The program is proposed to be implemented in defined phases. Currently, the activities are progressing with a focus on the development of critical technologies for subsystems such as the Crew Module (CM), Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS), Crew Escape System, etc. The department has initiated activities to study technical and managerial issues related to crewed missions. The program envisages the development of a fully autonomous orbital vehicle carrying 2 or 3 crew members to about 300 km low Earth orbit and their safe return.
NASA is developing a plan to land humans on Mars by the 2030s. The first step in this mission begins sometime during 2020, when NASA plans to send an uncrewed craft into deep space to retrieve an asteroid.[20] The asteroid will be pushed into the moon's orbit, and studied by astronauts aboard Orion, NASA's first human spacecraft in a generation.[21] Orion's crew will return to Earth with samples of the asteroid and their collected data. In addition to broadening America's space capabilities, this mission will test newly developed technology, such as solar electric propulsion, which uses solar arrays for energy and requires ten times less propellant than the conventional chemical counterpart used for powering space shuttles to orbit.[22]
Several other countries and space agencies have announced and begun human spaceflight programs by their own technology, Japan (JAXA), Iran (ISA) and Malaysia (MNSA).
Passenger travel via spacecraft
A number of spacecraft have been proposed over the decades that might facilitate spaceliner passenger travel. Somewhat analogous to travel by airliner after the middle of the 20th century, these vehicles are proposed to transport a large number of passengers to destinations in space, or to destinations on Earth which travel through space. To date, none of these concepts have been built, although a few vehicles that carry fewer than 10 persons are currently in the flight testing phase of their development process.
One large spaceliner concept currently in early development is the SpaceX BFR which, in addition to replacing the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles in the legacy Earth-orbit market after 2020, has been proposed by SpaceX for long-distance commercial travel on Earth. This is to transport people on point-to-point suborbital flights between two points on Earth in under one hour, also known as "Earth-to-Earth," and carrying 100+ passengers.[23][24][25]
Small spaceplane or small capsule suborbital spacecraft have been under development for the past decade or so and, as of 2017[update], at least one of each type are under development. Both Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin are in active development, with the SpaceShipTwo spaceplane and the New Shepard capsule, respectively. Both would carry approximately a half-dozen passengers up to space for a brief time of zero gravity before returning to the same location from where the trip began. XCOR Aerospace had been developing the Lynx single-passenger spaceplane since the 2000s[26][27][28] but development was halted in 2017.[29]
National spacefaring attempts
This section lists all nations which have attempted human spaceflight programs. This should not to be confused with nations with citizens who have traveled into space including space tourists, flown or intended to fly by foreign country's or non-domestic private space systems – these are not counted as national spacefaring attempts in this list.
Nation/Organization
Term(s) for space traveler
First launched astronaut
(1922–1991) Soviet space program
(OKB-1 Design Bureau) космонавт (same word in:) (in Russian)(in Ukrainian)
Ғарышкер(in Kazakh) Yuri Gagarin 12 April 1961 Vostok spacecraft Vostok Orbital
United States of America National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) astronaut
spaceflight participant Alan Shepard (suborbital) 5 May 1961 Mercury spacecraft Redstone Suborbital
spaceflight participant John Glenn (orbital) 20 February 1962 Mercury spacecraft Atlas LV-3B Orbital
People's Republic of China (PRC) Space program of the People's Republic of China 宇航员 (in Chinese)
yǔhángyuán
航天员 (in Chinese)
hángtiānyuán ... 1973 (abandoned) Shuguang 1 Long March 2A –
hángtiānyuán ... 1981 (abandoned) Piloted FSW Long March 2 –
European Space Agency CNES / European Space Agency (ESA) spationaute (in French)
astronaut ... 1992 (abandoned) Hermes Ariane V –
Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos)
космонавт (in Russian)
cosmonaut Alexander Viktorenko, Alexander Kaleri 17 March 1992 Soyuz-TM Soyuz-U2 Soyuz TM-14 to MIR
Ba'athist Iraq
(1968–2003)[30] ... رجل فضاء (in Arabic)
rajul faḍā'
رائد فضاء (in Arabic)
rā'id faḍā'
ملاح فضائي (in Arabic)
mallāḥ faḍā'iy ... 2001 (abandoned) ... Tammouz 2 or 3 –
State of Japan National Space Development Agency of Japan (NASDA) 宇宙飛行士 (in Japanese)
uchūhikōshi or
アストロノート
astoronoto ... 2003 (abandoned) HOPE-X H-II –
People's Republic of China China National Space Administration (CNSA) 宇航员 (in Chinese)
hángtiānyuán
taikonaut("太空人" tàikōng rén) 杨利伟
(Yang Liwei) 15 October 2003 Shenzhou spacecraft Long March 2F Orbital
India Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) Vyomanaut
(in Sanskrit) ... 2022[31] Gaganyaan GSLV Mk III Orbital
Islamic Republic of Iran Iranian Space Agency (ISA) کیهان نورد (in Persian)
kayhan navard[34] ... 2017 (planned)[35][36][needs update] ISA manned spacecraft ... –
European Space Agency European Space Agency (ESA) astronaut ... 2020 (concept approved in 2009; but full development not begun)[37][38][39][40] ARV phase-2 Ariane V –
State of Japan Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) 宇宙飛行士 (in Japanese)
astoronoto ... HTV-based spacecraft H-IIB –
There are two main sources of hazard in space flight: those due to the environment of space which make it hostile to the human body, and the potential for mechanical malfunctions of the equipment required to accomplish space flight.
See also: Space habitat, Effect of spaceflight on the human body, and Locomotion in Space
Planners of human spaceflight missions face a number of safety concerns.
Main article: Life support system
The immediate needs for breathable air and drinkable water are addressed by the life support system of the spacecraft.
See also: Astronautical hygiene
See also: Effect of spaceflight on the human body and Space medicine
Medical consequences such as possible blindness and bone loss have been associated with human space flight.[41][42]
On 31 December 2012, a NASA-supported study reported that spaceflight may harm the brain of astronauts and accelerate the onset of Alzheimer's disease.[43][44][45]
In October 2015, the NASA Office of Inspector General issued a health hazards report related to space exploration, including a human mission to Mars.[46][47]
On 2 November 2017, scientists reported that significant changes in the position and structure of the brain have been found in astronauts who have taken trips in space, based on MRI studies. Astronauts who took longer space trips were associated with greater brain changes.[48][49]
See also: Weightlessness
Medical data from astronauts in low Earth orbits for long periods, dating back to the 1970s, show several adverse effects of a microgravity environment: loss of bone density, decreased muscle strength and endurance, postural instability, and reductions in aerobic capacity. Over time these deconditioning effects can impair astronauts' performance or increase their risk of injury.[50]
In a weightless environment, astronauts put almost no weight on the back muscles or leg muscles used for standing up, which causes them to weaken and get smaller. Astronauts can lose up to twenty per cent of their muscle mass on spaceflights lasting five to eleven days. The consequent loss of strength could be a serious problem in case of a landing emergency.[51] Upon return to Earth from long-duration flights, astronauts are considerably weakened, and are not allowed to drive a car for twenty-one days.[52]
Astronauts experiencing weightlessness will often lose their orientation, get motion sickness, and lose their sense of direction as their bodies try to get used to a weightless environment. When they get back to Earth, or any other mass with gravity, they have to readjust to the gravity and may have problems standing up, focusing their gaze, walking and turning. Importantly, those body motor disturbances after changing from different gravities only get worse the longer the exposure to little gravity.[53] These changes will affect operational activities including approach and landing, docking, remote manipulation, and emergencies that may happen while landing. This can be a major roadblock to mission success.[citation needed]
In addition, after long space flight missions, male astronauts may experience severe eyesight problems.[54][55][56][57][58] Such eyesight problems may be a major concern for future deep space flight missions, including a crewed mission to the planet Mars.[54][55][56][57][59]
See also: Health threat from cosmic rays
Without proper shielding, the crews of missions beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) might be at risk from high-energy protons emitted by solar flares. Lawrence Townsend of the University of Tennessee and others have studied the most powerful solar flare ever recorded. That flare was seen by the British astronomer Richard Carrington in September 1859. Radiation doses astronauts would receive from a Carrington-type flare could cause acute radiation sickness and possibly even death.[61]
Another type of radiation, galactic cosmic rays, presents further challenges to human spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit.[62]
There is also some scientific concern that extended spaceflight might slow down the body's ability to protect itself against diseases.[63] Some of the problems are a weakened immune system and the activation of dormant viruses in the body. Radiation can cause both short and long term consequences to the bone marrow stem cells which create the blood and immune systems. Because the interior of a spacecraft is so small, a weakened immune system and more active viruses in the body can lead to a fast spread of infection.[citation needed]
During long missions, astronauts are isolated and confined into small spaces. Depression, cabin fever and other psychological problems may impact the crew's safety and mission success.[64]
Astronauts may not be able to quickly return to Earth or receive medical supplies, equipment or personnel if a medical emergency occurs. The astronauts may have to rely for long periods on their limited existing resources and medical advice from the ground.
Mechanical hazards
Space flight requires much higher velocities than ground or air transportation, which in turn requires the use of high energy density propellants for launch, and the dissipation of large amounts of energy, usually as heat, for safe reentry through the Earth's atmosphere.
See also: Launch escape system
Since rockets carry the potential for fire or explosive destruction, space capsules generally employ some sort of launch escape system, consisting either of a tower-mounted solid fuel rocket to quickly carry the capsule away from the launch vehicle (employed on Mercury, Apollo, and Soyuz), or else ejection seats (employed on Vostok and Gemini) to carry astronauts out of the capsule and away for individual parachute landing. The escape tower is discarded at some point before the launch is complete, at a point where an abort can be performed using the spacecraft's engines.
Such a system is not always practical for multiple crew member vehicles (particularly spaceplanes), depending on location of egress hatch(es). When the single-hatch Vostok capsule was modified to become the 2 or 3-person Voskhod, the single-cosmonaut ejection seat could not be used, and no escape tower system was added. The two Voskhod flights in 1964 and 1965 avoided launch mishaps. The Space Shuttle carried ejection seats and escape hatches for its pilot and copilot in early flights, but these could not be used for passengers who sat below the flight deck on later flights, and so were discontinued.
There have only been two in-flight launch aborts of a crewed flight. The first occurred on Soyuz 18a on 5 April 1975. The abort occurred after the launch escape system had been jettisoned, when the launch vehicle's spent second stage failed to separate before the third stage ignited. The vehicle strayed off course, and the crew separated the spacecraft and fired its engines to pull it away from the errant rocket. Both cosmonauts landed safely. The second occurred on 11 October 2018 with the launch of Soyuz MS-10. Again, both crew members survived.
In the only use of a launch escape system on a crewed flight, the planned Soyuz T-10a launch on 26 September 1983 was aborted by a launch vehicle fire 90 seconds before liftoff. Both cosmonauts aboard landed safely.
The only crew fatality during launch occurred on 28 January 1986, when the Space Shuttle Challenger broke apart 73 seconds after liftoff, due to failure of a solid rocket booster seal which caused separation of the booster and failure of the external fuel tank, resulting in explosion of the fuel. All seven crew members were killed.
Reentry and landing
See also: Atmospheric reentry
The single pilot of Soyuz 1, Vladimir Komarov was killed when his capsule's parachutes failed during an emergency landing on 24 April 1967, causing the capsule to crash.
The crew of seven aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia were killed on reentry after completing a successful mission in space on 1 February 2003. A wing leading edge reinforced carbon-carbon heat shield had been damaged by a piece of frozen external tank foam insulation which broke off and struck the wing during launch. Hot reentry gasses entered and destroyed the wing structure, leading to breakup of the orbiter vehicle.
Artificial atmosphere
There are two basic choices for an artificial atmosphere: either an Earth-like mixture of oxygen in an inert gas such as nitrogen or helium, or pure oxygen, which can be used at lower than standard atmospheric pressure. A nitrogen-oxygen mixture is used in the International Space Station and Soyuz spacecraft, while low-pressure pure oxygen is commonly used in space suits for extravehicular activity.
Use of a gas mixture carries risk of decompression sickness (commonly known as "the bends") when transitioning to or from the pure oxygen space suit environment. There have also been instances of injury and fatalities caused by suffocation in the presence of too much nitrogen and not enough oxygen.
In 1960, McDonnell Aircraft test pilot G.B. North passed out and was seriously injured when testing a Mercury cabin / spacesuit atmosphere system in a vacuum chamber, due to nitrogen-rich air leaking from the cabin into his space suit feed.[65] This incident led NASA to decide on a pure oxygen atmosphere for the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo spacecraft.
In 1981, three pad workers were killed by a nitrogen-rich atmosphere in the aft engine compartment of the Space Shuttle Columbia at the Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39.[66]
In 1995, two pad workers were similarly killed by a nitrogen leak in a confined area of the Ariane 5 launch pad at Guiana Space Centre.[67]
A pure oxygen atmosphere carries risk of fire. The original design of the Apollo spacecraft used pure oxygen at greater than atmospheric pressure prior to launch. An electrical fire started in the cabin of Apollo 1 during a ground test at Cape Kennedy Air Force Station Launch Complex 34 on 27 January 1967, and spread rapidly. The high pressure (increased even higher by the fire) prevented removal of the plug door hatch cover in time to rescue the crew. All three, Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee, were killed.[68] This led NASA to use a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere before launch, and low pressure pure oxygen only in space.
See also: Reliability engineering
The March 1966 Gemini 8 mission was aborted in orbit when an attitude control system thruster stuck in the on position, sending the craft into a dangerous spin which threatened the lives of Neil Armstrong and David Scott. Armstrong had to shut the control system off and use the reentry control system to stop the spin. The craft made an emergency reentry and the astronauts landed safely. The most probable cause was determined to be an electrical short due to a static electricity discharge, which caused the thruster to remain powered even when switched off. The control system was modified to put each thruster on its own isolated circuit.
The third lunar landing expedition Apollo 13 in April 1970, was aborted and the lives of the crew, James Lovell, Jack Swigert and Fred Haise, were threatened by failure of a cryogenic liquid oxygen tank en route to the Moon. The tank burst when electrical power was applied to internal stirring fans in the tank, causing the immediate loss of all of its contents, and also damaging the second tank, causing the loss of its remaining oxygen in a span of 130 minutes. This in turn caused loss of electrical power provided by fuel cells to the command spacecraft. The crew managed to return to Earth safely by using the lunar landing craft as a "life boat". The tank failure was determined to be caused by two mistakes. The tank's drain fitting had been damaged when it was dropped during factory testing. This necessitated use of its internal heaters to boil out the oxygen after a pre-launch test, which in turn damaged the fan wiring's electrical insulation, because the thermostats on the heaters did not meet the required voltage rating due to a vendor miscommunication.
The crew of Soyuz 11 were killed on June 30, 1971 by a combination of mechanical malfunctions: they were asphyxiated due to cabin decompression following separation of their descent capsule from the service module. A cabin ventilation valve had been jolted open at an altitude of 168 kilometres (551,000 ft) by the stronger than expected shock of explosive separation bolts which were designed to fire sequentially, but in fact had fired simultaneously. The loss of pressure became fatal within about 30 seconds.[69]
Fatality risk
Further information: List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents § Non-astronaut fatalities
As of December 2015[update], 22 crew members have died in accidents aboard spacecraft. Over 100 others have died in accidents during activity directly related to spaceflight or testing.
Accident cause
27 January 1967 Apollo 1 Electrical fire in cabin, spread quickly by 16.7 psi (1.15 bar) pure oxygen atmosphere and flammable nylon materials in cabin and space suits, during pre-launch test; inability to remove plug door hatch cover due to internal pressure; rupture of cabin wall allowed outside air to enter, causing heavy smoke and soot 3 Cardiac arrest from carbon monoxide poisoning
24 April 1967 Soyuz 1 Malfunction of primary landing parachute, and tangling of reserve chute; loss of 50% electrical power and spacecraft control problems necessitated emergency abort 1 Trauma from crash landing
30 June 1971 Soyuz 11 Loss of cabin pressurization due to valve opening upon Orbital Module separation before re-entry 3 Asphyxia
28 January 1986 STS-51L Space Shuttle Challenger Failure of o-ring inter-segment seal in one Solid Rocket Booster in extreme cold launch temperature, allowing hot gases to penetrate casing and burn through a strut connecting booster to the External Tank; tank failure; rapid combustion of fuel; orbiter breakup from abnormal aerodynamic forces 7 Asphyxia from cabin breach, or trauma from water impact[70]
1 February 2003 STS-107 Space Shuttle Columbia Damaged reinforced carbon-carbon heat shield panel on wing's leading edge, caused by piece of External Tank foam insulation broken off during launch; penetration of hot atmospheric gases during re-entry, leading to structural failure of wing, loss of control and disintegration of orbiter 7 Asphyxia from cabin breach, trauma from dynamic load environment as orbiter broke up[71]
31 October 2014 SpaceShipTwo VSS Enterprise powered drop-test Copilot error: premature deployment of "feathering" descent air-braking system caused disintegration of vehicle in flight; pilot survived, copilot died 1 Trauma from crash
Spaceflight portal
Kepler-438b SpaceflightAgena target vehicleApollo–Soyuz Test ProjectAsteroidAstronautCassini–HuygensCassiopeia ACosmic Origins SpectrographEarth observation satelliteEuropean Robotic ArmGlobeHuman mission to MarsInternational Space StationLow Earth orbitMoonNASA Deep Space NetworkOuter spaceParabolic antennaRover (space exploration)SatelliteSaturnScience fictionSolar SystemSpace elevatorSpace ShuttleSpace stationSpacecraftStarSunWeightlessnessWormholeGravityNASALander (spacecraft)Falcon 9Launch vehicleLaunch padSpaceXJupiter-CTitan IIIELunar roverSpace explorationSpace habitatSpace colonizationLunar phasePortals in fictionTeleportationTime portalParallel universes in fictionOpportunity (rover)Opportunity mission timelineSpace capsulePlanetPlanetesimalEvent Horizon TelescopeAstronomical interferometerRadio telescopeRadio astronomySupermassive black holeGalactic CenterSpacetimeSagittarius A*Astronomical radio sourceMilky WayBlack holeYuri GagarinVostok 1Soyuz (spacecraft)FlightTunguska eventSleeper shipIntergalactic travelInterstellar travelGalaxyAtmosphereCosmosUniverseChaos (cosmogony)Cosmology
This article uses material from the Wikipedia article "Human spaceflight", which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0. There is a list of all authors in Wikipedia
Astronomy & Astrology
3d,planet,jupiter,erath,venus,astrology,astronomy,esoteric


This section contains an overview of the college's history, the academic program, the campus and student body; information on admission, fees and financial aid; graduate programs; and a key for deciphering course listings. Select a section from the dropdown menu to start.
This catalog contains policies and program descriptions and should be used solely as an informational guide. The General Information section is accurate as of July. All announcements herein are subject to revision. Students are responsible for informing themselves of current policies and meeting all relevant requirements.
This section details instructors, requirements for the majors and minors, and course offerings for the year (the data is updated annually). The Search for Courses tab enables you to search for courses based on interests and criteria. This tab will enable you to identify if a course can count toward a major, minor, concentration or a certificate.
Select a department or program from the dropdown menu.
The information contained in the Courses of Study documents is accurate as of July. Smith College reserves the right to make changes to the Courses of Study, including changes in its course offerings, instructors, requirements for the majors and minors, and degree requirements. Course information contained herein is compiled by the Office of the Provost/Dean of the Faculty from data submitted by departments and programs. All data listed are as officially and formally approved by the Office of the Provost/Dean of the Faculty, the Committee on Academic Priorities, and the faculty-at-large. Additional information may be available on the individual Web sites of departments and programs.
General Information contains an overview of the college's history, the academic program, the campus and student body; information on admission, fees and financial aid; graduate programs; and a key for deciphering course listings.
Academic Programs includes information on all of the college's courses; majors, minors and concentrations; faculty directories; and requirements.
Course Search allows you to search a database of courses offered by Smith College. Information includes the course title, course description, department, subject, name of instructor(s), credits, meeting time, and curriculum distribution indication.
Select all or credit number. Only applicable credit numbers display in drop-down list.
Enter course number. The search selects all course numbers that include the entered course number. For example, entering course number 24 would select course number 246. Yearlong courses end in 'Y' or 'D'. To search for yearlong course enter just the number or the number followed by 'Y' or 'D'. This search is not case-sensitive. Partial course numbers can be entered.
Search for a word or phrase in a course title. This search is not case-sensitive. Partial course titles can be entered.
The search will return courses with any one of the selected distributional groups. For example, if you select distributional groups Literature and Mathematics, you will select courses in Literature or courses in Mathematics or courses in Literature and Mathematics.
Certain courses in Smith College place special emphasis on writing in one or more sections. These courses have the designation "Writing Intensive". Each first-year student is required, during her first or second semester at Smith, to complete at least one writing-intensive course.
The Course Catalog Search Results displays the course section listing selected from the search criteria. Click on a course title for full information and description. Click on a department to view complete departmental listings.


It says it right on our homepage: "We're your voice in the construction industry." We take that responsibility seriously, and we're proud to represent our members.
The fall of 2007 and early 2008 was a time of rapidly escalating asphalt oil prices — you might recall that North Slope crude oil peaked at over $150 a barrel in July 2008. Because suppliers could only offer a quote good for less than 30 days, the rapid price increases made it a challenge for paving contractors to nail down a cost at bid time when the actual paving wouldn't happen for a year or more after the bid. Because of these price fluctuations, and with the approval of the Federal Highway Administration, the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, or DOT, had established an asphalt price adjustment index to provide some compensation to contractors. The asphalt price index reduced the risk to contractors, resulting in more competitive bids, thus better prices to the owner: DOT. But the index had an effective date the first of July, and several large paving jobs fell into a doughnut hole. They had bid when asphalt oil prices were much lower and were likely going to be paved after oil prices jumped sharply. This was an inequity that had the potential to cost a few contractors millions.
It was apparent that the only fix for this problem — besides the do-nothing option where these contractors would eat millions in additional costs — was to get the asphalt adjustment index made retroactive to cover these projects caught in the donut hole. We were able to convince DOT this was a real problem. Federal Highways, which held the money, said they didn't have the ability to do it retroactively. DOT, with the ability, said they didn't have the money. We worked with DOT, identified a source of funds within the DOT budget, and AGC succeeded in getting the asphalt price index applied retroactively to those doughnut-hole paving projects, averting many millions in losses for those contractors.
One of the challenges of being a successful bidder on a project, besides having the lowest number, is having all the necessary paperwork for the bid in order. It's been a few years since any low bid on a DOT project was declared non-responsive for failure to make a good-faith effort in meeting the goals for Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, or DBE, sub-contracting participation. It's one thing to be second or third bidder and not get the job. But to be successful in putting together the low bid and have it rejected because you didn't cross a "t" or dot an "i" is adding insult to injury. In 2011 and 2012, there were at least a half-dozen low bids that were rejected, largely for clerical errors. The problem was costing the industry tens of thousands in lost bid prep costs, and the DOT had to award to the second bidder, costing millions of dollars more. Our members raised the issue, we got involved, worked closely with the DOT Civil Rights Office overseeing the program and arrived at a workable solution. It was a winning result for all.
Some of the issues we help find solutions to, such as the retroactive price index, are one-time matters. Problem solved, and it won't come up again. Some, like the improvements to the DBE program, result in continuing benefits year after year. Over the past decade, we've had the opportunity to help our industry in a variety of ways, and we've achieved a long list of successes. Like the sand and gravel exemption from the mining license tax in 2012, changes to the corporate tax rate for look-back taxes and increasing the contractor's license bond. More recently, the changes to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's MG3 and MG9 air quality permits have made it easier for contractors to comply and greatly reduced the probability of costly violations. Like the Energizer Bunny, these benefits keep going and going, year after year.
We deal with broad industry issues, and where success can be achieved — we do. AGC Alaska has a track record that is envied in most other states.
Some accomplishments involved efforts as easy as a conversation with the right people in the right place. Some took many of our members and meetings over many months to effect a change in regulations. Still others required a more arduous process involving the legislative session and a change in state law. Whether through direct contact, efforts involving our lobbyist or our members in a working group or grass roots network, they all took sitting down at the table, convincing the right people there was a problem and working together on a solution.
Issue resolution like the previous examples are how we get things done. We take a leadership role when appropriate, and we represent the industry. We're not in the trenches; we aren't confronted with the problems. But when our members speak up and we hear of problems, we look for opportunities. We analyze and look for solutions. When we don't see solutions right away, we get creative, we get our members involved and we find solutions.
Our success with these issues shows the value of AGC and the benefit of being involved in a trade association like AGC. There is truly power in numbers, and our membership combined is a force to be reckoned with. At AGC, we have more than 600 member companies representing every corner of our state. Our highest value to our members is our advocacy. And our biggest strength in that advocacy is our members.
Builders Association and the Forest Association, to name a few, are representing your interests and fighting for your business and Alaska's economy whether you're a member or not.
If you're not a member of an organized association, we encourage you to reach out. You don't have to be a general contractor or a miner to be involved in groups like AGC, AMA or RDC. We have members who are accountants, lawyers, insurance agents, caterers, computer techs, bankers, communications specialists and more. All you need is a desire to better our state and the policies that shape the business climate and the economy in Alaska. The dues are more affordable than you might think, and the benefits, in addition to advocacy efforts, are endless. Many associations also reap the benefits of national representation, with dollars and resources directly impacting federal issues.
Trade associations were established to protect and promote the interest of their members. This may sound like a pitch for you to get involved in one of the many associations representing your interests because it is. There are individuals out there who ride the coattails of others — they sit back and reap the benefits while others pay the bills and do the heavy lifting. There will always be some of those, just like there will always be people who don't vote. Just look at some recent election results and tell me how that's working out. When less than 50 percent of the people vote and a candidate wins by just over 50 percent then 25 percent of the people are controlling how it will be for the other 75 percent. The math is easy to understand.
So, for those of you who vote, who do the heavy lifting and who contribute to the cause — thank you. If you don't, consider this a formal request. Visit www.agcak.org and let's talk about the ways we can help our state (and your business) grow and prosper.


If you would like to write a review for one of our products, just visit that product's page in our store. Once you are in a product page, there will be an "Add Your Review" link right next to the star ratings underneath the product name. You can also view and add a review in the product page's Additional Info towards the bottom of the page. You must be logged in first to leave a review.


We are a factory mainly manufacturing crystalline-silicon solar panels from 10-320W series. Our products include mono & poly solar panels, and BIPV poly double glass solar panels. And we have passed TUV, IEC, CE, CQC, ISO certificates. Our solar panels have been exported to Europe already.
We can provide your best price and best quality products.


Amateur sleuth, Echo, is married to a photographer who once worked for National Geographic because if I could be anything when I grow up, that's probably what I'd be!
The idea of Hawke's Reflections exhibit was born from photos taken by my sister at Lake Martin in Breaux Bridge. The rich sunset described in the Fleur deKey excerpt below is a memory of a vibrant horizon, with blazing purple and reds, which I witnessed during the burning of fields at the end of sugar cane season.
The centerpiece of Hawke LeBauve's Reflections Exhibit displayed in a double frame on a tripod and entitled Sunset, Sunrise was not for sale. A twelve year old Hawke had raised his camera, capturing a dancing nine year old Echo in the rich sunset reflected on the muddy water of the Bayou Teche. The setting sun stained the air a red-orange-purple slush causing Victoria's messy curls to blaze with fiery highlights – a mini explosion of ginger and silver.
Eighteen years later while Echo sat barefoot in a canoe dressed only in a peach slip with tousled hair, Hawke photographed Sunrise. Yellows and pinks colored the air surrounding her as the sun nudged its way up from the riverbank.


text:
BOOKS: Sacred Cows and Golden Geese
January 1, 2001 Dylan Forest	Leave a comment
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, January/February 2001:
Sacred Cows and Golden Geese
by Ray Greek & Jean Swingle Greek
Continuum (320 Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10017), 2000.
256 pages, hardcover; $24.95.
Sacred Cows and Golden Geese came recommended by several ANIMAL PEOPLE subscribers as the most thorough and factually supported presentation yet of the scientific case against vivisection. Perhaps it is. It may supercede the obsolete texts by Hans Reusch, The Slaughter of the Innocent (1978) and The Naked Empress (1982), which until now have been the Bibles of scientific antivivisectionism.
Like the Reusch volumes, Sacred Cows and Golden Geese extensively reviews medical mistakes of the past that resulted from misinterpreting animal research. But when Reusch wrote, current biotechnology barely even existed in theory. Sacred Cows and Golden Geese hits at least in passing most major biotech developments.
The authors, anesthesiologist Ray Greek and veterinarian Jean Swingle Greek, bring appropriate credentials to their task. They footnote more copiously than Reusch ever did. They are also more discriminating in their use of sources. Most of their claims are anchored to articles from peer-reviewed journals, and most essentials of each citation appear verifiable via the Internet.
Gesturing toward popular appeal, Greek and Greek omit the horrific photos of old experiments that are a mainstay of most antivivisection literature. They explain that they hope to appeal to readers' intellect, not just wrench hearts and stomachs. But Sacred Cows and Golden Geese is nonetheless more a sermon to the choir than a fair exploration of vivisection from a scientific perspective.
The "scientific" argument, essentially unchanged in at least three centuries, is that animal experiments harm human health because the differences among species are so great that findings cannot be reliably extrapolated from animals to people. The evidence, continuing to amass, is that animal experiments have often not accurately modeled human disease, response to toxins, and response to surgical technique. Much of the data is disputed.
Yet as Greek and Greek establish with quote after quote from researchers, there is general agreement throughout most of the medical and scientific community that animal testing has often failed to predict longterm hazards of carciniogenic chemicals; that older toxicity tests such as the LD-50 were pointlessly obsolete decades ago and have been done during the past 30 years more for legal reasons rather than for reasons of science; that such tests must be phased out and replaced; and that medical training has relied too much on surgery and drugs, instead of disease prevention through diet and exercise.
But all of this falls short of making a case that animal-based research is worthless and useless. To establish that a
screwdriver makes a poor chisel, for example, is not the same thing as establishing that a screwdriver is a poor tool to use for driving screws.
Greek and Greek describe the failures of vivisection without adequately explaining why researchers persist in doing it. The competitive nature of science and medicine and the magnitude of the rewards awaiting discovery tend to render conspiracy theories absurd. Further, the advent of genetic modification has begun to counter arguments about species differences. The organs of mice and pigs may indeed function differently from those of humans, but the differences narrow markedly when the organs of mice and pigs are grown from human genes.
One way or another, the scientific case against vivisection always circles back to moral and ethical arguments. Even if all the scientific problems with animal research could be resolved, the moral and ethical dilemmas would remain: just because a thing can be done does not mean that it should be.
Like Reusch, Greek and Greek ultimately come across much like "scientific" creationists, whose cases hang on the imprecisions and past errors of evolutionary theory. Scientific discovery is by nature imprecise. Science progresses because theories are constantly tested, revised, and retested in light of new findings. Animal research survives because on balance it seems to produce useful results. Whenever a more effective method of pursuing a particular type of investigation has evolved, animal research in that pursuit has dwindled, not least because using lab animals is expensive.
Innovation and moral concern about animal suffering may eventually end lab use of animals–not, however, because animal research "doesn't work," in scientific terms, but rather because a non-animal approach better serves the sum of the needs and wishes of society.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
The biggest Big Red Rage coming Thursday
Posted by Darren Urban on January 20, 2016 – 4:59 pm
Before the Cardinals head off to Carolina, there first will be a pumped up "Big Red Rage" radio show — officially, "The Biggest Red Rage" — coming Thursday night at Majerle's at Chandler Fashion Center and presented by San Tan Ford. Not only will it be double in size, from one hour to two (6 p.m. to 8 p.m.)
BRR will have normal hosts Calais Campbell, Paul Calvisi and Ron Wolfley, but it will also feature guests like team president Michael Bidwill, cornerback Patrick Peterson and wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald, among others. Admission and parking are free. For those who can't make it, you can listen on Arizona Sports 98.7 FM or watching streaming video on azcardinals.com/videos-photos/live-video.html.
San Tan Ford is also giving away a two-year lease on a brand new Mustang. Sign ups for the car begin on Thursday at 10:30 a.m. and go through 5:30 p.m. A finalist will be selected every hour and the winner will be announced at the end of the "Biggest Red Rage."
Tags: Big Red Rage
The biggest of the Red Rages
Posted by Darren Urban on December 17, 2014 – 9:45 am
Every week (practically) during the season, Calais Campbell is the host of the Big Red Rage radio show, held over at the Majerle's Sports Grill at Chandler Fashion Center. For an hour, Campbell and co-hosts Paul Calvisi and Ron Wolfley talk Cardinals with a different player guest. That changes a bit this week, in an event called the "Biggest Red Rage" — fitting because it comes before the biggest game of the season.
Thursday night, the show's time slot has been doubled, from 6-8 p.m., and the guest list expanded to the high rollers: Larry Fitzgerald, Patrick Peterson and team president Michael Bidwill.
If you can't make it out there, the show will air live on Arizona Sports 98.7 FM.
Posted in Blog | 8 Comments »
Friday before the Bengals, as camp ends
Posted by Darren Urban on August 22, 2014 – 4:25 pm
As cuts approach – down to 75 by Tuesday, down to 53 by next Saturday – it's getting a lot clearer who will likely be around for the Cardinals. (I will have a post on my predicted 53 next week.)
But coach Bruce Arians made a great point Friday about the last few spots on that 53-man roster, and what the decisions can be based upon.
"It's going to be hard. It's going to come down to positions of strength and we have about four or five positions of strength," Arians said. "You always have to measure those last five guys and what is harder to find if another injury occurs."
The injury component is important. Maybe keeping an extra defensive lineman makes sense if you are already thin. I'd think that definitely could come into play at inside linebacker with Kevin Minter's situation. It's hard enough finding guys sitting around to fill in there. Maybe less so on the offensive line. We shall see.
— Arians said there are still players that could stave off getting cut Sunday through their play, especially if they shine on special teams. If you are looking for hints of who will make it through to at least the final preseason games, look for the players that flash in the "transition game," as Ron Wolfley likes to call it.
— Not that Jaron Brown's place on this team has been in much doubt after an impressive training camp and preseason, but this was General Manager Steve Keim's comment about Brown on this week's edition of the "Big Red Rage" radio show: "He may be one of the most improved players from year to year I've seen in my NFL career."
Brown simply didn't get the reps in college playing behind future first-rounders Sammy Watkins and DeAndre Hopkins. He's gotten that work now.
— I don't know how much time linebacker John Abraham might play Sunday, if at all, but there is clearly little concern from either Abraham or the coaches that the veteran will be ready for the regular season. There is still a lot of talk about him getting into shape, and it lead to a funny exchange when Abraham was asked about his current weight.
"I didn't check," Abraham said. "I'll let you know, though. Some time next year."
Seriously, though Abraham said weight has never been an issue in his career and he doesn't think it will be now.
— Arians has been happy with the progress of rookie defensive lineman Ed Stinson. Stinson isn't someone who is going to fill up your notebook when you talk to him, but "of course when the head coach brings your name up in anything you are happy," he said. "I just want to make sure I put my 100 percent effort in and show what I've got."
— Keim said safety Tyrann Mathieu has been fully cleared and essentially, it will be up to Mathieu to decide when he can play in games again. "We're not going to press him," Keim said.
— Keim reiterated he thinks guard Jonathan Cooper, somewhere down the road, is going to be "fine" and he is reveling in the fact that neither tackle position has been a constant source of chatter this camp. That's a nod to Jared Veldheer and Bobby Massie.
"It's been refreshing," Keim said. "They don't talk about the right or the left side. Both have had very good camps."
— If you are going to the game Sunday (or any home game for that matter), don't forget about the NFL bag policy instituted last year. Click here for more info.
— Arians acknowledged "I would be surprised" if an NFC West team was not the NFC representative in the Super Bowl. Asked if he expected an NFC West team to win the Super Bowl, Arians didn't hesitate. "Yes."
— Arians, as he opened his final press conference of training camp: "I know you guys are really upset of this being the last day here," Arians said.
Then B.A. referenced the next practice-day presser, which will come at the team's Tempe facility. If you recall, construction there means the famous "interview tree" is no more. "The biggest thing, I don't want to see any tears when we don't meet underneath that tree next week," Arians said.
— Camp is over. Bring on the Bengals.
Tags: Bengals, Big Red Rage, Bruce Arians, Jaron Brown, Steve Keim
Palmer was anxious to work with Cards
Posted by Darren Urban on April 12, 2013 – 9:21 am
Right before Carson Palmer arrived in a recent trade, there were a few stories speculating that Palmer might not want to come to the Cardinals — the team that was the main one linked to Palmer as a destination — because he might want to be a backup for a contender and try and get to a sure winner after all his years in Cincinnati and Oakland. Palmer wasn't talking before the trade, and after the trade, he proclaimed how much he was excited to be in Arizona.
General Manager Steve Keim got a sense of that immediately, even before the trade was consummated.
Keim relayed this anecdote on the Big Red Rage Thursday night, after he noted that Raiders GM Reggie McKenzie had given the Cards permission to talk to Palmer prior to a trade. The Cardinals flew Palmer in and took him out to dinner, with the next day about taking a physical and some conversation at the team facility.
"Carson calls me at 6:15 in the morning, begging me to pick him up so he can watch tape," Keim said. "For a 33-year-old quarterback, 10 years in the league, I love that passion."
A few hours later, Palmer was a Cardinal in a move that — in hindsight — felt inevitable.
Keim watched the last three years of Palmer's passes in scouting him before the trade. The Raiders were ready to dump Palmer for a song, yet Keim found himself midway through the process, "about 70 throws into it from (the) 2012 (season) and I was shaking my head trying to figure out, 'What's wrong with this guy?' "
Obviously the Cardinals don't see any issues.
Tags: Big Red Rage, Carson Palmer, Steve Keim
Signing a punter and other kibbles and bits
Posted by Darren Urban on April 8, 2013 – 11:33 am
A few odds and ends on a Monday morning during the second week of voluntary workouts:
— The Cardinals signed punter Will Batson Monday. Batson also can kick field goals and kick off, so he'll fill the role of Ricky Schmitt for this offseason and preseason, I'd think — which means he's a major long shot. Ultimately, Dave Zastudil (who was very good last year) will be the punter and Jay Feely the kicker. This just gives the Cards an extra helper with a 90-man roster. Batson was with the Titans in preseason last year.
— There will be a special edition of the Big Red Rage this Thursday night at 6 p.m. at the regular spot, Majerle's Sports Grill in Chandler. Exact details are still being firmed up, but it will be live on Arizona Sports 620 and one of the guests will be General Manager Steve Keim.
— The 2013 Cardinals Cheerleaders will be announced on the site Friday. We will have a series of videos posted this week (1 p.m. so don't miss them) detailing the audition process.
— I find it interesting that Kevin Kolb signs with the Bills after it could be argued that, had he not gotten hurt against the Bills last season, he might still be a Cardinal. (Then again, following that logic, there might not have been a coaching change at all. But I digress.) He's got big plans for Buffalo.
— It's like Harvard winning the NCAA tournament.
— Presented without comment: Former Cardinals QB Max Hall has signed with the Winnipeg Blue Bombers of the CFL.
Tags: Big Red Rage, cheerleaders, Kevin Kolb, Max Hall, Senio Kelemete, Steve Keim, Will Batson
Chasing the 10th sack
Posted by Darren Urban on December 27, 2012 – 10:14 am
Linebacker Daryl Washington, snubbed for the Pro Bowl Wednesday, is still chasing his 10th sack of the season. Notching one more would not only tie the franchise mark for sacks by a linebacker, but also make him the first guy with 10 since Bertrand Berry had 14.5 in 2004 and the first Cardinal ever to have 100 tackles and 10 sacks. Of course, Washington as been stuck with nine sacks since getting one against the Rams Nov. 25. Chasing down mobile 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick for one might not be easy. Washington did have two sacks the last time the Cards played the 49ers, but at that point, Alex Smith was still playing QB for San Francisco.
— Left tackle Nate Potter sat out Wednesday's practice with a bad ankle. If Potter isn't able to play Sunday, his backup is D'Anthony Batiste — who struggled so much when he was in there earlier in the season — and I'd think Batiste would likely get another start. That would definitely be something that bears watching.
— The Big Red Rage tonight at Majerle's in Chandler will feature not only host Kerry Rhodes but also wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald, so reserve your table quickly. The show starts at 6 p.m.
Tags: Bertrand Berry, Big Red Rage, Colin Kaepernick, D'Anthony Batiste, Daryl Washington, Kerry Rhodes, Larry Fitzgerald, Nate Potter
Dockett's thoughts and other notes
Darnell Dockett appeared on the "Bickley and MJ" show on XTRA 910 Wednesday to talk about his latest kerfuffle. Bottom line? "It's not my intention to leave," Dockett said, and insisted he hasn't brought up to anyone the desire to be traded. That said, he also said he didn't want to be anywhere where he wasn't wanted — I don't think anyone has told him with the Cardinals they don't want him, but again, emotions have run high.
Highlights from Dockett's comments:
— "This was not my saying or my idea of me being traded or people thinking I might be traded or came up with this or said this. I never said that. At the end of the day, I will never be anywhere I'm not wanted or I'm not going to be somewhere where I am treated unfairly. Things like that. I want to be happy. I play with passion, I give everything I have on the field."
— On his reaction when he first was told on the sideline that letting the Jets score the final TD was the right strategy: "At the time I really didn't know what was going on. I really didn't think about it or anything like that. I just didn't have the 'quit' attitude. Once they explained it to me real fast, I just didn't want to be a part of that. Our defensive coaches emphasize all week, 'Don't let a team score, don't let a team score.' That's embedded in me. … At the time, looking back at it, maybe I could have done something different, but I don't have regret on what I've done."
— On clearing the air with coach Ken Whisenhunt: "Maybe at the end of the season we'll talk or whatever, but as of right now, my main focus is going out and playing hard. That's my main focus. As far as a conversation of me being here or a conversation of our relationship, that's not really my concern right now. He's got a job to do, I have a job to do. I'm thinking we're both frustrated at being on a nine-game losing streak."
— The Big Red Rage tonight at 6 p.m. will feature kicker Jay Feely joining host Kerry Rhodes. As always, it is as Majerle's Sports Grill in Chandler.
— No one is going to argue the Cardinals' offense has been anything but poor. But FootballOutsiders.com, which measures DVOA (basically a system to compare units and players to the average unit or player), points out the Cards aren't among the worst they've tracked, and even note that by those measurements, the Cards struggled more in 2010 through 14 weeks. It's an interesting read.
Tags: Big Red Rage, Darnell Dockett
Hyphen up for award, and Pro Bowl possibilities
Posted by Darren Urban on November 20, 2012 – 9:51 pm
As Pro Bowl voting continues, the folks over at profootballfocus.com are prompting readers to pick three Cardinals as Pro Bowl worthy. Two are the same as their last list, with linebacker Daryl Washington and defensive end Calais Campbell getting the nod. The third was safety Kerry Rhodes, who has been having a solid bounce-back season after injuries wrecked 2011. Rhodes had an interception in Atlanta this past weekend.
— Running back LaRod Stephens-Howling, after his 127 yards rushing in Atlanta, is up for the FedEx Ground player of the week. You can vote here until Friday. He's up against the Bengals' Ben Jarvis Green-Ellis and the Buccaneers' Doug Martin.
— Speaking of Stephens-Howling, he will be the guest on the Thanksgiving week edition of Kerry Rhodes' Big Red Rage, which will be held Wednesday night because of the holiday. The show starts at 6 p.m. as usual at Majerle's Sports Grill in Chandler.
Tags: Big Red Rage, Calais Campbell, Daryl Washington, Kerry Rhodes, LaRod Stephens-Howling, Pro Bowl voting
Rhodes says his back is "not good"
Safety Kerry Rhodes still hosted his weekly radio show Wednesday night, getting to the Big Red Rage at Chandler Fashion Center. But when asked about the pain he was in at the show with his messed-up back, Rhodes said "on a scale of 10? It's 13."
Rhodes, who didn't practice Wednesday, was plain about his back problem. "(It's) not good," Rhodes said, joking it was "a case of old man-itis."
"My back is pretty jacked up right now, but I'm trying to get back," Rhodes added.
Rhodes said it wasn't back spasms. He thinks he did something near the goalline early in the game, but when it went away, he didn't think much of it. He came off the field in the fourth quarter when it started to bother him, but ran back on the field even though he was still in pain. He thought he could make a difference. "I wanted to help my team win," Rhodes said. "The coaches didn't know I went back in. I just kind of ran back on the field."
That, it turned out, was a mistakes. Rhodes' back locked up on him during his final play and the pain "went all the way down to my calves." Watching the replay, you can see Rhodes freeze and a Bills blocker bear down and ram him with a block. Rhodes couldn't move at that point and just had to take the hit.
"I thought it was kind of dirty, but it's part of the game," Rhodes said. "The block didn't do any damage. It was all back issues."
Rhodes said he has never had back problems. "It hurts when I do normal stuff," Rhodes said. "I can't brush my teeth, I can't tie my shoe."
Tags: Big Red Rage, Kerry Rhodes
Talking trade, and blacking out
Posted by Darren Urban on October 9, 2012 – 5:06 pm
There are a lot of questions I am getting about trades when it comes to a running back. If the Cards go get another running back, I think it will be the free-agent route. That way you don't surrender a draft pick at a position that you need short-term help with. It's tough when people start throwing out names like Chris Johnson or Maurice Jones-Drew or even Mark Ingram, all of whom apparently have been suggested as targets. Stop. Those aren't going to happen for a multitude of reasons.
The one trade name that does make some sense to me is Chris Ivory in New Orleans. He's shown before he can perform and he is buried deep, deep on the Saints' bench behind Ingram, Pierre Thomas and Darren Sproles. But the Saints know the Cards need a back, and they might just hold up the Cards for a higher pick. Frankly, in this day and age where backs have become more and more disposable, it's hard to think that's a good idea. Ivory was undrafted and has shown well — maybe William Powell can do the same for the Cards.
Free agency makes more sense to me, if and only if the Cards decide they need someone. That's no sure thing right now.
As for available free agents, well, the name that comes up over and over is Tim Hightower. He knows the team and the offense. But Hightower isn't healthy right now. The Redskins, who cut him in camp, thought about bringing him back when Roy Helu went down for the season and not only is Hightower still coming back from an ACL tear, Redskins coach Mike Shanahan said he had a setback and was having an arthroscopic procedure on his knee. That was a couple weeks ago. (The Redskins signed Ryan Grant instead.) Could Hightower be in the mix down the road if he heals up? Maybe. But the Cards have had their fill of injured backs. They don't need another so they would have to be sure where Hightower stands health-wise before that could be explored.
— If you missed it, check out this story of defensive lineman Nick Eason, his mom , and why this month of pink in the NFL is so meaningful to him.
— The Cardinals, in case you missed it on Twitter yesterday, will be wearing their black uniforms again Sunday against Buffalo. Because of the various NFL rules in place for alternate uniforms — you can't wear them in nationally televised games, you can't wear them after flex scheduling starts — this is the last opportunity for the Cards to do so.
— The Big Red Rage has been moved to Wednesday night because of ASU football, so anyone heading to Majerle's — special guest Vonnie Holliday — make sure you adjust your schedules accordingly. Same time (6 p.m.), same place (Chandler Fashion Mall).
Tags: Big Red Rage, black uniforms, Chris Ivory, Saints, Tim Hightower, trade


text:
package org.izju.user;

import org.izju.R;

import android.content.Context;

public class User {
	private String id;
	private String name;

	public User(String name) {
		this.name = name;
	}

	public User(String id, String name) {
		this.id = id;
		this.name = name;
	}

	public String getId() {
		return id;
	}

	public void setId(String id) {
		this.id = id;
	}

	public String getName() {
		return name;
	}

	public void setName(String name) {
		this.name = name;
	}

	public static User getCurrentUser(Context context) {
		return new User(context.getString(R.string.user_name));
	}
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Q: Increment Index and retaining index value to subIndex's in array of strings Found a way to implement the incrementing value to index using regex.
But for subindex, how to retain the index value?
Note: It helps, If there is a way to increment the subindex value.
Sample Code: Link
    let x = 0;
  let index = new RegExp("pindex", "g");
  let subIndex = new RegExp("psubindex", "g");
  let result = paragraph.replace(index, function(match) {
    return (++x);
  }).replace(subIndex, function (match) {
       return (x);
  })

Input:
const sampleParagraphs =
`   pindex. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit
    pindex. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
        psubindex.1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit
        psubindex.2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit
`,
`.  pindex. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.`,
`   pindex. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
        psubindex.1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit
        psubindex.2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit
        psubindex.3. Lorem ipsum dolor sit
`,
`   pindex. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
        psubindex.1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit
`

Expected Output:
`   1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit
    2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
        2.1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit
        2.2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit
`,
`   3. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.`,
`   4. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
        4.1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit
        4.2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit
        4.3. Lorem ipsum dolor sit
`,
`   5. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
        5.1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit`

A: The problem with the referenced code is that it replaces all pindex first, then all psubindex, e.g. all psubindex will have the last index value 5.
You can use a single replace instead of two:

function replaceIndex(paragraph) {
  let x = 0;
  return paragraph.replace(/(pindex|psubindex)/g, function(match) {
    if(match === 'pindex') {
      ++x;
    }
    return x;
  });
}

const paragraphSample = `
pindex. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

pindex. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
  psubindex.1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit
  psubindex.2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit

pindex. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod.

pindex. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing.
  psubindex.1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit
  psubindex.2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit
  psubindex.3. Lorem ipsum dolor sit
  psubindex.4. Lorem ipsum dolor sit

pindex. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
  psubindex.1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit
`;

const output = replaceIndex(paragraphSample);

console.log(output);

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Prends-moi Parfum de Minceur is the first weight loss perfume in the world. It is manufactured by a French perfume house called Robertet and is part of the Veld's collection.
Prends-moi fragrance concept was based on aromatherapeuitic and neurocosmetic research findings that can help women slim with pleasure.
About 75% of women who tried the Prends-moi perfume said that they wanted to take less snacks while 73% of them said that they felt happy after spraying on this weight loss perfume.
Prends-moi is said to be the first weight loss perfume in the world. It contains active ingredients that trigger the release of B-endorphins in the skin. These endorphins are used to send signals to the brain that can lead to feeling satisfied, happy and the feeling to eat less.
What does Prends Moi mean in English?
If translated, the French word Prends Moi simply means "Take Me" in English. Guess, Veld's really want people to take and BUY Prends Moi.
The makers of Prends-moi said that the scent of Prends-moi is somewhat like a combination of grapefruit, bergamot and mandarin. It creates a fresh ambiance and you can also catch some scent of jasmine, lilac and ylang-ylang.
Aside from the active ingredients that trigger the endorphins in the skin, Prends-moi also contains a "Slimming Complex" that is made up of Caffeine, Carnitine and Spirulina extract. These active ingredients show good effects on burning fat in the past.
Prends-moi can be used in the morning and you can apply this perfume whenever some cravings for snaking arise.
You can also apply this thinning pefume on problem spots like your belly or thighs and you can see good results.
Prends-moi can be bought in selected perfume stores. You can look for an authorized shop by Velds or other online perfume shop.
There is a high demand for this weight loss perfume right now and it is said that more than 5,000 persons are on the waiting list. This perfume is still not available in department stores and leading perfume shops because of the high demand and limited stocks.
What is the Price of Prends-moi?
The cost of Prends-moi perfume is pegged at £ 29.99 in the UK , France and other countries in Europe. In the US and Canada, the price of Prends-moi can be around $50 per bottle.
Get the latest weight loss news and weight loss products by joining us on Facebook at How to Lose 5 Pounds in a Week Fast!!
Please Share and Tweet this weight loss blog.


text:
smo63
graphics... 61
e-commerce... 61
web... 61
wordpress... 61
digital... 61
website... 50
tireless... 31
e global... 30
web designing11
eglobalsof... 10
content... 10
globalit Статьи Everything You Need to Know...
Everything You Need to Know About the Instagram Copyright Infringement Scam
During the last couple of weeks, many people (which includes celebrities) have fallen prey to a scam called "Instagram Copyright Infringement." The fraudsters have been impersonating Instagram Help Centre officials and getting their hands on personal user information. The most recent celebrity who has fallen prey to this scam and thus lost access to her account is actor Amisha Patel.
HOW DOES THIS INSTAGRAM COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT SCAM WORK?
Apart from the recent victim Amisha Patel, numerous other celebrities, including Urmila Matondkar and Asha Bhosle, got a message on their Instagram account from a verified profile generally named "Help Center" claiming that he/she is linked to the Instagram Copyright Infringement Center.
The message received said that they (posing as Help Center) had received a lot of complaints regarding their (the receiver's) Instagram account for a long time now, and thus they wanted to inform the user about this issue. The message further read that before the user temporarily disables his/her account, some of the posts they have published on their account breaches the platform's community guidelines. If the user believes that this copyright infringement statement is not valid, he/she should give immediate feedback – failing to do so; their social media account will be deleted from Instagram permanently within the next 72 hours.
At the end of this message, a copyright appeal form was attached in the form of a link, which in reality was a phishing link, asking the message receiver to enter information such as their account password, date of birth, and so on.
WHAT IS A PHISHING LINK?
A phishing link is a link made by scammers who mislead people into believing that they are actually filling in their personal information on a secure website, in this case – the Instagram Help Centre, but in reality, those entered details go directly to the fraudster.
By getting their hands on this information, the scammer can easily sign in to the user's account and change its password, thus locking the user out of their own social media account. After that, they can access your personal data, chats, change your account's username and also exploit the verified account to trick and defraud other users.
However, if you are wondering how come celebrities fell prey to this scam, here's the answer. In this case, the scammer even made sure that the link they sent has an "https" in the address bar, which generally indicates that the person is on a secure website.
WHAT DO THE SCAMMERS GAIN BY ACCESSING THESE ACCOUNTS?
Scammers exploit social media accounts for numerous reasons. According to past observations, one of the primary reasons is selling personal information on the "dark net," which is an unindexed Internet version that people can only access using the TOR (The Onion Router) software.
On the darknet, there are multitudes of websites that sell heaps of personal information such as debit and credit card details and passwords, which other cybercriminals buy to withdraw money from the accounts.
Likewise, there are a lot of people on the darknet interested in purchasing the details of the social media accounts of celebrities and public figures as it yields good money.
Moreover, after accessing these verified profiles, some scammers also go on to try and take money from other users on the following list by posing as the account owner.
HOW CAN YOU PROTECT YOURSELF FROM THIS INSTAGRAM COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT SCAM? WHAT IF SOMEONE HAS FALLEN PREY TO IT?
One of the best ways to protect yourself from falling prey to this Instagram scam is to be aware of it in the first place, which you do now. In case you receive any message on Instagram asking you to click on any links quoting copyright infringement, even if the sender has a verified profile titled "Help Center," just delete the message right away and don't reply to it. You may also get in touch with the Instagram Help Center if you still feel doubtful about it.
However, in case you have already clicked on one such phishing link and ended up losing access to your own account, you write to Instagram, providing proof of the details of your account and explaining how you got locked out of it in the first place. You may also inform the cyber police regarding this issue since this act contravenes the cyber laws.
Cybercrimes are on the rise, and fraudsters are continually searching for new ways to hack into your accounts and gain access to your personal data. One such scam has emerged, namely, "Instagram Copyright Infringement Scam." The scammers involved in this have paid attention to the minute details, which resulted in even celebrities and public figures falling prey to it. Social media users need to be smarter than ever and be careful with the information they put out on their accounts. Moreover, they should think twice or even thrice before clicking on any link regardless of whether it came from a verified profile or a random account asking you to claim your "reward." Beware of phishing scams!
Hariom Balhara is an inventive person who has been doing intensive research in particular topics and writing blogs and articles for E Global Soft Solutions. E Global Soft Solutions is a Digital Marketing, SEO, SMO, PPC and Web Development company that comes with massive experiences. We specialize in digital marketing, Web Designing and development, graphic design, and a lot more.
SOURCE : Instagram Copyright Infringement Scam
Автор: globalit
copyright infringement digital marketing e global soft solutions e-commerce solution eglobalsoftsolutions graphics designing instagram instagram scam ppc seo smo social media web development website designing wordpress development solution


If you are going to be flying into Nashville International Airport (airport code:BNA), Hotels-Rates has got you covered with all you want to know about lodging and hotels. Located in Nashville, TN, Nashville International Airport provides easy transportation to close-by hotels and destinations in Nashville, with 48 hotels within 5 miles of the airport, with the lowest rate for those hotels being $42.74. Whether you are traveling on vacation or for your job, we have information on all the attractions, facilities and places of interest in Nashville. Visiting a university for the first time? Belmont University, Vanderbilt University, Tennessee State University and Lipscomb University are all fairly close to the airport, with Belmont University being the closest. If you're flying in to see your team play, you'll be excited to hear that Nissan Stadium, Herschel Greer Stadium, Vanderbilt Stadium, Gaylord Entertainment Center, Memorial Gymnasium and Bridgestone Arena are close to the airport.