[rescue] Crap! Not again...

[Steve Hatle]

On 2/1/03 5:50 PM, "Dave McGuire" <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:

>> Even if they were in similar orbits, the differing velocities,
>> orbital positions, and fuel considerations would probably make it darn
>> near
>> impossible.
> 
>  Perhaps you didn't read the part above when I typed "a difficult
> proposition".  If the alternative is the loss of a two billion dollar
> spacecraft and seven people, they could dump the fucking payload and
> burn farts in the engines to get there.
> 

OK- as long as you re-read the part where I said "darn near" impossible. :-)


>> ISS probably doesn't have enough reserves (food, air regeneration,
>> water) to
>> support 7 additional crew for any length of time, either.
> 
>  If memory serves there's a resupply launch going up from Russia
> tomorrow.
> 

Again true, but that was a payload calculated to sustain three people for a
finite amount of time. Even if changing the payload was a simple as
unsealing the capsule and throwing in some extra bags of Cheetos, some
bottled water and a few extra oxygen tanks, that would change the payload
weight and dynamics, which would change the fuel load of the rocket, which
might cause a launch delay, which might mean that they would miss an optimal
launch window, etc.

If they took the shot with the existing payload, they would have to set up
an emergency launch in short order, which means they would need a prepped
and ready vehicle, a pad, a new payload, etc.

I'm _not_ saying any of this isn't possible, but given the physics, time
constraints, economics, etc. it's "darn near" impossible. Doesn't mean we
shouldn't try to save 7 lives- the vehicle would be a bonus, but an
acceptable sacrifice, in my book.

Heck, if it were easy/economical, we'd have been flying the Pan Am Orion to
the Space Station for transfer to Clavius MoonBase for at least the last
year, just like Kubrick/Clarke said we would.

Steve