Rusty Barton wrote:

NASA may have to evacuate ISS if Russian rocket mission fails

Woopty doo. Another example of sensationalistic journalism. Of course the
station would have to be evacuated if they can no longer get supplies up.

Funny how they mention that 3 progresses were scheduled but only one went up
due to financial difficulties. Seems to me that Progresses have been going up
at pretty regular intervals since Columbia, about 3 months apart or less.
There has been some shuffling in the past (one progress delayed a few months
so that another one would be fitted before it).

Also, Progress launched on Soyuz rockets seem to be very reliable. Don't
understand why USA media would make such a sensationalistic article the day
before the launch. Perhaps they know that by tomrorow, the research they did
on how long they can survive should a progress fail to launch would become
worthless after the progress has launched succesfully. So they figured they'd
publish it the day before.

That article would have been more respectable if it had provided on-time
launch rates for Progress, and provided an idea if since Columbia, the
Progress vehicles had been able to keep the station's supplies more or less
stable (e.g. sustainable indefinitely) or if there is a deficit of water/food/clothing.