And if Atlantis got crippled during a rescue launch?

Talk about launching Atlantis on a hypothetical rescue mission apparently
assumes its launch would go flawlessly, with none of the problems that
plagued the Shuttle crew its going up to rescue.

And if *it* got crippled on asecent, then what? With two unlandable Shuttles
in space, do the crews just pass around a bottle of cyanide pills? Or do
they slap on the makeshift Bondo kits they were sent up with and see what
happens?

It would probably be a matter of will this likely occur again?

I HOPE we never find out the hard way.

To continue ISS enough progress and soyuz should be in stock ready to
fly in a emergency

Thermateer wrote:

Talk about launching Atlantis on a hypothetical rescue mission apparently
assumes its launch would go flawlessly, with none of the problems that
plagued the Shuttle crew its going up to rescue.

And if *it* got crippled on asecent, then what? With two unlandable Shuttles
in space, do the crews just pass around a bottle of cyanide pills? Or do
they slap on the makeshift Bondo kits they were sent up with and see what
happens?

That's why I didn't understand the Art Bell crowd for being upset that NASA
didn't rush Atlantis out of the VAB to rescue Columbia. If they had known that
the foam damage was serious, would it make sense to risk another shuttle flying
with the exact same design? Losing another orbiter and at least 2 more lives
(probably at least 3) wouldn't be helpful at all.

do they really have those pills?

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 01:09:51 GMT, "Thermateer"
wrote:

With two unlandable Shuttles
in space, do the crews just pass around a bottle of cyanide pills? Or do
they slap on the makeshift Bondo kits they were sent up with and see what
happens?

"Me" wrote in message
...

do they really have those pills?

No.



On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 01:09:51 GMT, "Thermateer"
wrote:

With two unlandable Shuttles
in space, do the crews just pass around a bottle of cyanide pills? Or do
they slap on the makeshift Bondo kits they were sent up with and see what
happens?

"Me" wrote in message
...

do they really have those pills?


No. Why bother, when you can open the door and pass out in less than a
minute?

Dr. P. Quackenbush wrote:

"Me" wrote in message
...

do they really have those pills?


No. Why bother, when you can open the door and pass out in less than a
minute?


10-15 seconds.

"nmp" wrote in message
news
Bob Haller wrote:

It would probably be a matter of will this likely occur again?

I HOPE we never find out the hard way.

To continue ISS enough progress and soyuz should be in stock ready to
fly in a emergency

Sounds like the most pragmatic, trustworthy option. And it would cost the
least amount of money, too.

But will American "pride" allow for Shuttle crew members to be rescued by
Russian spacecraft, and for the Russians to look like heroes?

Can Soyuz dock to the Space Shuttle, or will they always need ISS as a
transfer? That could be a problem if Space Shuttle was without propulsion
and cannot reach the ISS.


Please do a Google search on Soyuz, shuttle rescue scenarios, and basic
orbital mechanics.

Thermateer wrote:
Talk about launching Atlantis on a hypothetical rescue mission apparently
assumes its launch would go flawlessly, with none of the problems that
plagued the Shuttle crew its going up to rescue.

And if *it* got crippled on asecent, then what? With two unlandable Shuttles
in space, do the crews just pass around a bottle of cyanide pills? Or do
they slap on the makeshift Bondo kits they were sent up with and see what
happens?

The shuttle has had problems with foam shedding since the very
first mission. The experimental evidence gives us good confidence
that the probability of catastrophic damage on a particular
mission is low (but not as low as it should be, of course).

Even if you think the probability of catastrophic damage is one
in ten (which is grossly higher than statistics based on the
demonstrated flights show), that means a rescue mission has a
90% chance of rescuing seven astronauts, and it only risks two
lives in the process. Sounds like a good bet to me.

If an orbiter is known to be damaged in orbit and incapable of
returning safely, the shuttle program is over. The program
can't sustain itself on the remaining orbiters, and there's no
chance of building a replacement. So there's little value in
preserving the remaining orbiters as museum pieces. Might as
well make one last heroic flight to rescue those astronauts.
You'll have no problems getting volunteer astronauts to fly
the rescue mission.

Oh, and as to the problem of what to do if the second shuttle
is damaged -- well, you don't look for damage on that second
flight. There's nothing you can do about it, so there's not
much point in knowing, is there? Just like the Apollo 13
heatshield that might or might not have been damaged by the
explosion, it'll hold or it won't. Your most practical
course of action is the same either way.

--Rich

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:50:16 -0400, John wrote:

That's why I didn't understand the Art Bell crowd for being upset that NASA
didn't rush Atlantis out of the VAB to rescue Columbia. If they had known that
the foam damage was serious, would it make sense to risk another shuttle flying
with the exact same design? Losing another orbiter and at least 2 more lives
(probably at least 3) wouldn't be helpful at all.

It would have been a roll of the dice. Many other Shuttles had
launched in the exact same configuration as the doomed Columbia
mission and had made it home safe.

Would NASA have been able to find astronauts willing to ride Atlantis
up to try and rescue the Columbia crew, even knowing the same thing
could happen to them? The overwhelming response by the astronaut corps
after the disaster was "you bet your sweet ass we would have."

Brian