Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-winken!xanth!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!nak
From: nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: What if...
Message-ID: <5042@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 22 Mar 89 13:30:05 GMT
References: <18730@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <1989Mar21.183948.1174@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 22

In article <1989Mar21.183948.1174@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <18730@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Charles Daffinger) writes:
>>What are the contingencies for a shuttle which while it is in orbit, is
>>determined not to be able to withstand reentry for some reason, say
>>major tile damage in critical areas?
>

[Henry explains that we couldn't get a shuttle up in time, and that Mir
is too far away]

    What you *might* see is a Soyouz [sp] launch.  Or whatever it is that
    the Soviets use as their people taxi.  They have been launching those
    things since the late sixties, I think.  I don't know what their turn
    around time is, though.  I also can't remember how many people they
    hold for re-entry, but if memory serves they could stay up for a while
    using both sections for space.  It'd be cramped for sure.

    Henry what do you think?  I'm certain that the net is curious; this is 
    the premise for the book 'Marooned'.

    Neil Kirby
    ...cbsck!nak