The problem with the progress idea is pressurisation. I do not think there
are facilities to unpressurise it on orbit unless its connected to a docking
port.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"OM" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:19:31 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

If something does go wrong with Atlantis, we had better hope we can do
one quick turnaround on pad 39A.

...IIRC - and Jorge can confirm/deny this - we've done thought
exercises on this in the past over on .shuttle, and IIRC the quickest
"safe" turnaround was ~4 days. Of course, there's quite a few
x-factors here, such as when in the mission the need for a rescue
occurs, how much pad refurb can be done while the rescue vehicle is
being moved from either the VAB or the other pad, and how much can
either be slapdashed or skipped over altogether in order to get the
rescue shuttle launched in time.

...Also, here's one I think we discussed, but I can't recall the
answer right off, is whether a Progress resupply could be launched to
Hubble orbit on short notice. This goes back to all the talk about
"What If?" in the weeks following Columbia, and the n00b/Press
questions about "why couldn't they just throw up food/water/fix-a-flat
kits/etc until another shuttle could be launched?"


OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[