As I recall, part of the reason they didn't tell the Columbia crew or take further action was that they were of the opinion that there wasn't anything they could do about it anyway. It only makes sense to ascertain if NASA was correct in that regard. This contingency plan doesn't really answer that since it was such a crapshoot and we can't really even know if they would have risked the resources (human and material). What can be ascertained from this (and that includes the possible repair plans included in the report that AT doesn't delve into) is that there were certainly avenues to consider rather than taking the ostrich approach and hoping for the best.
Something that the report does mention is why other vehicles weren't an option. I'd always wondered why a Soyuz couldn't have been deployed with the necessary supplies, and that's covered. However, there was an Ariane 4 on the pad in French Guiana that was ready to deploy a satellite. According to the report it would have been difficult to get it refitted and reprogrammed, but that honestly seems like it'd at least be possible. All that was needed to buy them time was LiOH and O2. Certainly seems like something could be set up to deliver that within 30 days.
All of this also raises a fascinating ethical question. Would it be better to drag the thing out 30 days when the likelihood is that they'll probably burn up or suffocate anyway? It'd be awful for the crew and their families, and not so great for the public, either. All in all it's pretty remarkable that during the sixties neither us nor the Rooskies left any bodies on or orbiting the moon, or drifting off towards Andromeda. I suppose you'd have to take into consideration the possibility that you wind up with 7 dead astronauts orbiting the Earth for a while as you try to figure out how to handle such a situation, and that'd be pretty crappy.
Topic: The Official Space and Astronomy Thread v. Well, this is weird. (Read 193972 times)