Re: If the shuttle system is destroyed in the storm

From: Thelasian (thelasian_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/03/04 

Date: 2 Sep 2004 21:41:41 -0700

"Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message news:<Xns9558B5D59ABBAjrfrank@216.196.97.130>...
> "Alan Erskine" <alanerskine1@bigpond.com> wrote in
> news:u0IZc.17218$D7.13401@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>
> > What about using ELV's for the remaining sections
>
> What makes you think either will still be around? The EELV pads and
> facilities are just a few miles south of the shuttle pads; the SSPF (where
> the remaining ISS modules are stored) is just a couple miles south of the
> VAB. If KSC is hit by a storm powerful enough to destroy the shuttle
> program, it's highly likely that the others will also sustain critical
> damage as well. Not that it really matters in the case of the SSPF; even if
> the ISS modules aren't destroyed, they'd have to be pretty much redesigned
> and rebuilt in order to fly on any existing ELV.
>
> > and ('skuze me)
> > Soyuz (yes, bought from the Russians; don't come back at me with
> > "can't be done - laws don't permit it" when you know laws can change
> > in a heartbeat when necessary) for crews?
>
> OK then, I won't come back with "can't be done." I'll come back with
> "probably won't be done." In order for a change in the law to be
> "necessary", lawmakers would have to perceive that ISS is more important
> than Iran nonproliferation.

No, the lawmakers would have to perceive that the ISS is more
important than upsetting Israel. After all, the whole Iran
NonProliferation Act was passed under the pressure of the pro-Israeli
lobby, since Israel wants to dominate the middle east with its nuclear
weapons and doesn't want Iran to have a deterrent.