"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:04:01 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:
So did the Titanic. Now we have lifeboats for everyone.
But we don't insist that they be able to deliver ship's complement all
the way back to Southampton. NASA demands a lot more than a
"lifeboat."
They have to.
Define "have to". Question that assumption. At some point one has to make
the choice to not spend the money.
The sea lanes are relatively crowded, while LEO has
exactly one human-capable "ship". The Titanic's lifeboats were only
needed to await the next ship to come along. ISS's lifeboats don't
have that luxury.
Titanic had many ships within hours' travel of rescue The Californian
was within sight (her radioman had gone to sleep and distress rockets
were ignored by her captain, another change after Titanic was that all
large ships have their radios manned 24 hours a day) and the Carpathia
arrived on scene just after sunrise. ISS cannot expect to have other
ships available to rescue the crew within a reasonable amount of time.
Then either that has to change, or the assumption that it's a requirement
has to change.
As I pointed out, there are already scenarios where lifeboats won't do you
much good.
The government already sends hundreds of employees out on craft which have
rescue capabilities that are far more feel good than actually useful. One
of our own here served on one such craft.
Being able to "deliver all the way back to Southampton" is a lot
cheaper for NASA than having a Carpathia on standby for launch 24/7.
Or is it? Seriously. I do wonder if anyone has looked at the cost of
either developing a rescue craft for the next 4-5 years, paying the Russians
or simply doing what is being done for Hubble. A hassle, sure, but workable
if one really wants to do it.
Heck I'd argue it might open up more options than what we have now.
Brian