On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:58:40 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


Why do you think ISS is closer to a ship like the Titanic than it is to
something like the South Pole research station?

Because without a lifeboat, if the ISS is crippled, you die, just like
the lifeboat-less passengers on Titanic. You always have a fighting
chance at McMurdo, look how long Scott's expedition survived and that
was with 1912 technology. At the very least, you won't suffocate. You
might freeze, but during the summer months that's far from certain
(space is 100% hostile 24/7/365.)

My point is that evac from ISS using the shuttle is similar to evac
from the South Pole during the middle of winter. It certainly woudln't be
easy, but NASA already has plans in place for rescuing a stranded shuttle
crew for the Hubble repair mission.

That's not practical for ISS, though. We'd have to have a Shuttle on
standby like Endeavour will be for Atlantis, but launch prep takes too
long and we don't have enough Orbiters to keep doing this 365 days a
year.

So a Mars mission is "special", but a LEO station with a thousand people on
it would need to have "lifeboats" to return everyone to earth in case of an
emergency? That's just silly.

Let me turn this around on you. Cruise ships and aircraft carriers
already have thousands of people on them, and they have lifeboats for
everyone. Why is LEO different? Just because you want to save a few
bucks on a lifeboat? Good luck getting government or commercial
backers for THAT plan. :-)

Brian