In article d0ea7d5b-bc3f-421d-9eca-
, says...

On Jan 10, 1:12*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...



"bob haller" *wrote in message
...

and no doubt one for the loss of ISS and its crew

Actually very doubtful they have one prepared for that any more than the
President (or other top official) has one prepared for an ongoing operation
that isn't extremely visible to the public.

Agreed. *Despite Bob's "gut", the risk to astronauts actually on ISS is
far less than the risk to Armstrong and Aldrin in the LEM during Apollo
11. *In fact, I'd say that history has shown that launch and reentry of
the ferry vehicle to and from ISS (shuttle, Soyuz, and etc.) is far more
hazardous than being on ISS itself.

Of course the aircraft analog of this is that very few people have died
while flying in aircraft. *They mostly die when the plane crashes into
the ground. *Yes, I know it's sick, but there is more than a bit of
truth to it.

That's why if you actually read the memo in the article, "In event of
Moon Disaster", you'll see that what they were really covering were the
possibilities that the astronauts would crash on landing, become
stranded on the surface, or crash trying to take off and rendezvous with
the CSM. *In all those cases, their remains would "stay on the moon to
rest in peace". *The boilerplate speech really didn't cover the
possibility that they might all die in the CSM.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
* up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
* *- tinker

a bit of errant debris ttoo small to track could at any time take out
ISS,

I know you're not well versed in the field of space debris. Where is
your cite that "a bit of errant debris too small to track" is actually
capable of "taking out ISS"? I think it's a bold assertion to say that
if it's "too small to track" that it has enough energy to "take out
ISS". Since it's your assertion, please back it up.

or any number of technical issues.

Unlikely given the amount of redundancy built into ISS. Not only are
the critical systems duplicated, but in most cases they're duplicated
with completely different hardware designs (US versus Russian) and are
contained in completely different modules. ISS could lose entire
modules or entire systems and still operate well enough to keeep the
crew alive for quite some time.

jeffs statement is like saying with authority shuttle re entry is safe
because we have never lost a orbiter...

I stated that launch and entry have been historically shown to be the
most dangerous parts of spaceflight. That's a fact. Yes, there is
still the possibility of deaths during other parts of the flight.

Please note that in the case of Columbia, the damage to the TPS happened
during launch when a piece of ET foam slammed into the wing leading edge
RCC and literally ripped a hole in it. Note that even with that (rather
shocking) damage, Columbia still made it into orbit and successfully
completed the orbital part of the mission. It was only while attempting
reentry and landing that the damage caused Columbia to break up.

Even the Columbia case shows that compared to launch, reentry, and
landing, orbiting the earth in LEO is a much less dangerous environment.
That was my point all along.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker