Jeff Findley wrote:
Of course, you'll point out that given their history with submarines, they
appear to be less concerned with loss of hardware and loss of life than
their US counterparts. I can't dispute that.

Fair point. However, a submarine and the station do have significant differences:

Submarine has a LOT of people tightly speezed. Station doesn't. As a result,
the systems on a submarine are of a much larger scale, so if they go bezerk,
the problem will equally be of higher scale.

Here is a question: movies will often show smokers in a sub. Is that really
tolerated ? Are the air scubbers so good that they do handle all that stuff ?

Submarines are surrounded by far more pressure from SALT WATER, as opposed to
a mere 14.7psi of vacuum. When it comes to salt water an batteries, which is,
from what I was told, a huge potential for disaster in a sub, the station
doesn't have that. In fact, doesn't the station rely on NiCad batteries
instead of lead acid as submarines do ? (or do submarines now also have
NiCad/NiMh batteries ?)

The space station also does not have a nuclear reactor, nor does it have a
slealth mission that requires it stay submerged no matter what.

How many lived were lost in subs because the captain would not order the
submarine to surface ?