wrote in message
...
On Dec 22, 2:24 am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
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.

It kind of makes it hard to dock a Progress or a Soyuz to a stranded
shuttle orbiter when they use two different types of docking
mechanisms. Rigging up tethers to an unmanned vehicle, never mind
depressurizing it are the least of the problems to consider in this
scenario. As Jorge has pointed out, launching a Progress or a Soyuz
down into a 28.5 degree inclination and at the Hubble altitude is well
out of the Soyuz launcher's capability.

What about a Progress or Soyuz launched from Guyana?

http://spaceports.blogspot.com/2007/...ch-guyana.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17421968/from/ET/

From the above article by James Oberg:

Although the purpose of the new launch pad is mutual profit
through commercial payload delivery to space, Russian
officials make no secret of their long-range goal for the
facility. It is human space flight - more Gagarins, on
Russian-European spacecraft - using a new access highway
to space that bypasses existing political bottlenecks in
Kazakhstan and in Florida.

Of course, wishful thinking on the part of the Russians wouldn't be enough.
You'd have to have a Progress or Soyuz nearly ready to launch in order to
make this work. Plus there are all othe other problems like how to grab
Progress (you'd want a grapple fixture for the RMS to snag) and how to
depressurize it and open the hatch.

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson