That seems weird to me. High-minded principles about keeping weapons out of space, or hypotheticals about crazy crewmembers, seem to pale in comparison to the potential of landing in the wilderness and encountering a pack of wolves or worse. Off-course landings have happened several times before, and while I don't think any of them encountered hostile wildlife, it seems like a serious possibility.
Wolves only hunt people in the movies. More to the point, the survival weapon they're vetoing wouldn't kill a bear, it would piss a bear off. A survival weapon that's useful for actual defense is beyond the scope of what they can carry.
You can carry something goofy that exists purely for crew morale in a survival situation, but that's something you want to weigh against other improbable scenarios like a nutty crewmember getting his hands on the weapon. Why even bother worrying about it?
I think that with today's better tracking (gps etc) the procedure is to wait for rescue inside the bear and wolf-proof capsule. So the situation of being 'lost' in the wilderness is far less a worry.
In general that seems like sound advice but there are definitely going to be times when you want to get clear of the capsule. The obvious one is fire, but the thing that came to mind is the way some astronauts got sick on a floating Gemini or Apollo capsule one time because of fumes leaking from the thrusters. Those are fueled using hypergolics that are super toxic. I have no idea if the thrusters on a Soyuz capsule use hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide or what.
Thanks, that is really interesting. I'll have to read up on the Dragon capsules, I have enjoyed reading about their boosters and their landing attempts.
If they're using stuff like hydrazine in their thrusters, that's always going to be a major concern. They are planning on using the thrusters for every landing over land, eventually, or so I thought.
