ISS doomed if shuttle docked for an extended period?

There's no plan to have an STS-300-style backup launch
capability after the first two flights -- never has been -- so
what's the point of this article discovering that?

"Martin Evans" wrote in message
...

http://www.flightinternational.com/A...Space+station+
rescue+plan+flawed+after+STS+115.html

"Jim Oberg" wrote:

There's no plan to have an STS-300-style backup launch
capability after the first two flights -- never has been -- so
what's the point of this article discovering that?

But that wasn't the point of the article AT ALL.


--

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 21:38:47 +0100, Martin Evans
wrote:

"Jim Oberg" wrote:

There's no plan to have an STS-300-style backup launch
capability after the first two flights -- never has been -- so
what's the point of this article discovering that?

But that wasn't the point of the article AT ALL.

No, the point of the article was that ISS would become "unstable" after
the new truss is added -- the implication being that it would tumble out of
control.

That implication is ridiculous.

Martin Evans wrote in
news
"Jim Oberg" wrote:

There's no plan to have an STS-300-style backup launch
capability after the first two flights -- never has been -- so
what's the point of this article discovering that?

But that wasn't the point of the article AT ALL.

If you didn't think that was the point of the article, then you failed to
comprehend either the article, or Jim's reply, or both. The very first
paragraph said:

"Plans to use the International Space Station (ISS) as a safe haven if a
Space Shuttle is seriously damaged will be rendered unviable after the
expected March 2006 Space Shuttle Discovery mission, STS 115."

The fact is, ISS "safe haven" and shuttle rescue flights (e.g. STS-300) go
hand-in-hand - there is no use in having one without the other. And as Jim
said, NASA has never planned to support shuttle rescue flights for STS-115
and subsequent flights *anyway*. So the fact that ISS is "unviable" as a
safe haven after STS-115 is totally moot.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.