Discussion -- Suppose we had evacuated ISS after Columbia?

Discussion -- Suppose we had evacuated ISS after Columbia?


I'm pondering the what-ifs of the option where the ISS is evacuated soon
after
Feb 1, 2003, probably at the point in April where the Soyuz lifetime limit
is reached.

I still assume launch of perhaps one Progress per year with propellant, as
needed, for Russian Segment attitude control system and reboosts. They
can all operate, I believe (verify or refute, please), under TsUP-Moscow
commanding.

What extra hazards for the ISS would that have engendered? What
resources on the ISS would have been saved?

What operational 'lessons' would not have been learned, and
so what? This assumes that after shuttles return to flight and the
station is again occupied, activities would have proceded in much
the same direction as they did in the real world -- but with a 3-person
crew, much faster regarding outfitting and assembly.

I can think of a number of things we HAVE learned by having the
crew on the station during this interval, but I can't think of any
that couldn't have waited a few years -- we're not yet applying
these real lessons to near-term challenges, as far as I can determine.

As a side note, I do wonder at the political and diplomatic hazards to
the partnership, as the delay stretches from months to years. That would
also be a major stresser on the teams training for the next flight. On the
other hand, would the teams NOT needed for continuous occupation
be available to assist in the challenges of planning for resumption of
occupation at some future point?

I don't see that any money is saved, either way -- except where some groups
in the US and in Russia get furloughed for a year or more.

You may see one angle to this discussion, and that has to do with an
alternative future in which the Russians had NOT become key partners
in the design. Loss of shuttle in such a case would have required a crew
evacuation (through a small bail-out capsule designed and built with all
the money that was saved by not having the Russians along and by
not having to haul all the hardware into an inefficient orbital
inclination).
What I wonder is: what would have been so bad about that?

Don't forget, episodic occupancy of space stations had been the norm
on Skylab, Salyut-4, 5, 6 and 7, and early Mir. What, aside from the time
saved in conserving/deconserving the systems, was the problem there
(one counter-example -- station breakdown and loss of control, which
actually happened, and was reversed eventually anyway).

Speculations and hard examples are solicited. Thanks!

Jim O
www.jamesoberg.com