If we lost ISS would the shuttles be retired too? What of the future?

Lets imagine a ISS accident brought about by a ill astronaut from poor air
quality.

The astronauts survive but the station is lost. Out of control because of a air
leak might be a good example, or any other cause.

While we wait for it to deorbit and come down on someones head what of the
future of both another station and the remaing shuttles.

Would the US pack it in? Or continue flying those shuttles?

If a out of control ISS caused injuries on the ground who would pay the
victims? The US or would the money come from all the international partners?

Presently the only service the shuttle provides is payloads to ISS. Unless
congress releases the hardware to public use allowing comercial use it is
doomed to retirement in some warehouse/museum.

"Hallerb" wrote in message
...
Lets imagine a ISS accident brought about by a ill astronaut from poor air
quality.

The astronauts survive but the station is lost. Out of control because of
a air
leak might be a good example, or any other cause.

While we wait for it to deorbit and come down on someones head what of the
future of both another station and the remaing shuttles.

Would the US pack it in? Or continue flying those shuttles?

If a out of control ISS caused injuries on the ground who would pay the
victims? The US or would the money come from all the international
partners?

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:54:33 -0400, Hallerb wrote:

Lets imagine a ISS accident brought about by a ill astronaut from poor
air quality.

The astronauts survive but the station is lost. Out of control because of
a air leak might be a good example, or any other cause.

While we wait for it to deorbit and come down on someones head what of
the future of both another station and the remaing shuttles.

Would the US pack it in? Or continue flying those shuttles?


Well seeing as though we have nothing else to fly we'd keep flying
shuttles.

If a out of control ISS caused injuries on the ground who would pay the
victims?


I'd say yes. Not much of a choice really.


The US or would the money come from all the international
partners?


Mostly U.S. I'd say.

Fred Garvin wrote:

Well seeing as though we have nothing else to fly we'd keep flying
shuttles.

Why?

Paul

"Hallerb" wrote in message
...
Lets imagine a ISS accident brought about by a ill astronaut from poor air
quality.

Oh, is that the paranoia of the month?


The astronauts survive but the station is lost. Out of control because of
a air
leak might be a good example, or any other cause.

While we wait for it to deorbit and come down on someones head what of the
future of both another station and the remaing shuttles.

Yes. We'd sit on our butts, twiddling our thumbs bemoaning, "Woe onto us
who can't do a thing."



Would the US pack it in? Or continue flying those shuttles?

If a out of control ISS caused injuries on the ground who would pay the
victims? The US or would the money come from all the international
partners?

Oh, is that the paranoia of the month?

No but its a POSSIBLITY, see Jim O post even he is concerned.


Yes. We'd sit on our butts, twiddling our thumbs bemoaning, "Woe onto us
who can't do a thing."



Just why then is nasa so concerned about leaving it unmanned?

"Hallerb" wrote:
"Strider" wrote:

Oh, is that the paranoia of the month?

No but its a POSSIBLITY, see Jim O post even he is concerned.

Yes. We'd sit on our butts, twiddling our thumbs bemoaning, "Woe onto us
who can't do a thing."

Just why then is nasa so concerned about leaving it unmanned?

When we left the Apollo Skylab in orbit, we planned to go back with the
Shuttle. Delays in the program led to a Shuttle which was too late to go
back before the Skylab reentered earth's atmosphere and was lost. Today the
concern is that the longer the ISS is empty, the more likely that public
interest may wane to the point that the ISS can be mentally abandoned by the
public. That is the beginning of the end for any program paid for with tax
dollars. No ISS, no need for more Shuttle flights. This of course is just
my opinion, but after watching Dennis Miller tear NASA apart last night on
Hannity and Colmes you have to wonder what the average American will be
thinking about NASA this time next year (election year). If we are attacked
again here or abroad ala 911, interest in the manned U.S. Space program
could drop off the radar scope especially if there is the slightest hint of
trouble on the first return to flight launch.

-

Daniel
http://www.challengerdisaster.info
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

Hallerb wrote:

Lets imagine a ISS accident brought about by a ill astronaut from poor air
quality.

The astronauts survive but the station is lost. Out of control because of a air
leak might be a good example, or any other cause.

While we wait for it to deorbit and come down on someones head what of the
future of both another station and the remaing shuttles.

Would the US pack it in? Or continue flying those shuttles?

There's little other reason to fly them. Meanwhile, private developers and some
national entities (both foreign and domestic) would continue work on other means.



If a out of control ISS caused injuries on the ground who would pay the
victims? The US or would the money come from all the international partners?

"Uh, nobody, Hugh." The governments are immune from liability, unless they choose
to be liable.

Richard Schumacher wrote in
:

Hallerb wrote:

If a out of control ISS caused injuries on the ground who would pay
the victims? The US or would the money come from all the
international partners?

"Uh, nobody, Hugh." The governments are immune from liability, unless
they choose to be liable.

And they chose to be liable when they ratified the Liability Convention of
1972.

http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/liability.htm

I didn't read the list thoroughly, but it appears all the ISS partners have
ratified it.
--
JRF

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

In article ,
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

"Hallerb" wrote in message
...
Lets imagine a ISS accident brought about by a ill astronaut from poor air
quality.

Oh, is that the paranoia of the month?

The TCM (Trace Contaminant Monitor) was balky during dev and qual ten
years ago; the bugs were worked out but the need to maintenance/repair
never goes away. I'm very sure that it needs maintenance by now.

On the other hand, the TCCS (Trace Contaminant Control Subassembly) is
overdesigned for nearly ALL possible trace contaminents in the station
atmosphere; the design driver is/was reduction/removal of metabolic
ammonia.

This truly IS much ado about nothing if the US TCCS has been operating
nominally and if there is sufficient inter- and intramodule ventilation.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
"Heisenberg might have been here."
~ Anonymous