DISCUSSION: Could an organisation like International Rescue actually exist?

[Up_Tilt_390]

(I warn you now, this post will be quite lengthy, so if you haven't got a lot of time to take part, or if you are expecting a short simple case study (for need of a better word) you may be disappointed. Also, DO NOT vote in the poll until you have read the whole post. So anyway, moving along)

Okay now I understand this might be a bit of a niche thread to some people at first, but read on and you may get the idea of what I'm talking about. So I've recently been watching the whole original TV series episodes of Thunderbirds recently, and do not worry if you haven't seen the show or don't know much about it, this thread is not really about the show itself, this is about the science and engineering behind the organisation in the show if anything.

So the organisation in the show is known as International Rescue, and it's basic responsibilities are to save lives when disasters occur around the world, such as building collapses or major fires, etc., it's really widely varied. But basically it got me thinking; could an organisation like International Rescue actually exist in real life, be it now or be in the future? Me personally? I would give the answer as a confident astounding YES, and here is why...

Well, technologically speaking, back in the mid-1960s when Thunderbirds was made, there wasn't really much of a hope of having such an organisation, since we still had yet to land on the moon (though that was done four years later I believe), which is probably why the show took place a century later in the mid-2060s. Nevertheless, with today's technology, it already seems feasible to have the correct equipment for the most part. Though a few advancements are needed for the most part, I don't think it's beyond the reach of our technological advancements.

Okay so obviously we wouldn't have the organisation ran by just an old retired astronaut and his five sons, that would probably be very impractical, nor would we see exact or similar replicas of the great Thunderbird crafts themselves, as unfortunate as that may be, since they're not exactly aerodynamic with some design features, but the basic principle doesn't seem too unusual. For a start, let's just go over some basic machinery that would be and whether I think it would be possible. (For reference I will go by craft name in the show to give an idea of equivalency).

• Thunderbird 1 for fast response, danger zone reconnaissance, and mobile control operations? I say YES! I mean the vehicle itself is basically just like a rocket and VTOL (vertical take off and landing) harrier jet hybrid, and if made aerodynamically enough could reach 15,000 mph (or around 24,000 km/h). It would need a lot of thrust power and fuel though, not to mention the fact it may be made less efficient with how it would likely need to go a lot higher than other aircrafts , ie. somewhere within 100,000 ft (3,480 metres), which would make the take off and landing procedures a lot longer since it would need a lot of time to gain and lose that height, along with good amounts of vacant airspace, not even accounting for weather conditions that it may encounter, especially in take off and landing.

• Thunderbird 2 for heavy-duty transporter that would take rescue equipment to the danger zone? Again, I say YES! We have heavy cargo planes that carry large vehicles nowadays, so maybe just making it faster could suffice for the job. However, it probably won't be as simple as scaling up the plane size, because of aerodynamics and all, so it may be more practical to have multiple crafts when needed, especially if one goes out of action and such. Not to also mention, it would have to be very light for it's size, and given the fact the Airbus A380 was very hard to design properly because of it's size and weight, it wouldn't be impossible, but it would be very hard! Weather conditions and take off and landing times would also apply in this case.

• Thunderbird 3 for space rescue and satellite maintenance? Well, I'd say YES! but I think this would be the most difficult to achieve. For one thing, space travel is pretty difficult and needs a lot of funding by itself. But even forgetting the cost for now, technologically speaking it would be hard. In the show the rocket was a Single Stage to Orbit reusable craft, and while it's not impossible, SSTO operations aren't as efficient as the usual methods, and rockets for the most part break up after taking off in stages because of the better efficiency (I think, but I am sure people will correct me if I am wrong). However, that kind of take off efficiency would be negated with the constant need to retrieve the pieces, which in themselves need to be reusable, and that would probably take time to do itself, especially compared to SSTO which would allow the craft to take off and land in one piece over and over again. Though weather conditions wouldn't affect it as much as the other two, space can be hostile itself such as asteroids and that. A hard one I must say.

• Thunderbird 4 for marine rescue? Probably one the easier ones, so I say YES! We can already develop submarines that can withstand pressures of the ocean, and there would probably just be a need to have the right equipment attachments. However, oceans are very hostile, with storms, tsunamis, and of course water pressure. I imagine that while the sub itself could withstand pressures, equipment may be crushed immediately. I don't know a lot about submarine operations though if I am honest, so I could either be overestimating or underestimating. Again, surely someone will correct me.

• Thunderbird 5 for satellite communications? Yeah, that's probably the easiest one to say YES!. We have manned satellites already, that can pick up phone signals, and so it would be easy to contact in the case of an emergency. I imagine there are a few changes to be made, but the fact that it was just a satellite for communications, I think the bigger obstacle would be efficiently picking up signals for calls, along with conditions in space. Unlike TB3, TB5 would be constantly at risk from asteroids and what not. Not to mention, we cannot use phones efficiently underground, so there isn't a way of knowing who is danger unless they contact them. Again, kind of one I'm not a huge expert with.

So technologically speaking I don't think it's so far-fetched to have an international rescue organisation with such high-tech equipment. But then we haven't yet talked about the biggest obstacle, which is MONEY! The fuel costs alone would be (no pun intended) astronomical, not to mention the cost of building the crafts, maintaining them, launching them, paying the staff to use them, the equipment that would be used for them etc., and I am not even sure there would be enough money even today for such a thing. Governments alone wouldn't pay for it, there would need to be private investment, and since it would be a not-for-profit organisation if it were to be for the purpose of rescue, there would be no incentives. Someone would need to pay for it in some way or another, the question is how much and who?

So with that said, I think technologically speaking it isn't far-fetched to have an organisation that would assist in disasters and preserve human life on a global scale with high-tech rescue equipment, but economically it may not be viable in the near future. I think it could be POSSIBLE to have investors and the money for it in future, but I think there would need to be some discussions behind it along with incentives to invest. But with the prospect of leisurely space travel in the future, along with natural and man-made disasters still occurring in the world, some may think such an organisation could even be inevitable if we are to help ourselves.

So after reading that lengthy post (again, I apologise, but I had a genuine case), what do you think? Maybe some of you will have economic or engineering expertise to help your opinions, or maybe some of you will know more about it in general. Once again, this thread isn't about the show Thunderbirds, it's about the possibility of a major rescue organisation existing now or in the future. But ultimately, do you think it's possible, or will it always just be fiction? Perhaps you can have your own cases below. Enjoy the discussion...

 

[hexagon789]

(I warn you now, this post will be quite lengthy, so if you haven't got a lot of time to take part, or if you are expecting a short simple case study (for need of a better word) you may be disappointed. Also, DO NOT vote in the poll until you have read the whole post. So anyway, moving along)

Okay now I understand this might be a bit of a niche thread to some people at first, but read on and you may get the idea of what I'm talking about. So I've recently been watching the whole original TV series episodes of Thunderbirds recently, and do not worry if you haven't seen the show or don't know much about it, this thread is not really about the show itself, this is about the science and engineering behind the organisation in the show if anything.

So the organisation in the show is known as International Rescue, and it's basic responsibilities are to save lives when disasters occur around the world, such as building collapses or major fires, etc., it's really widely varied. But basically it got me thinking; could an organisation like International Rescue actually exist in real life, be it now or be in the future? Me personally? I would give the answer as a confident astounding YES, and here is why...

Well, technologically speaking, back in the mid-1960s when Thunderbirds was made, there wasn't really much of a hope of having such an organisation, since we still had yet to land on the moon (though that was done four years later I believe), which is probably why the show took place a century later in the mid-2060s. Nevertheless, with today's technology, it already seems feasible to have the correct equipment for the most part. Though a few advancements are needed for the most part, I don't think it's beyond the reach of our technological advancements.

Okay so obviously we wouldn't have the organisation ran by just an old retired astronaut and his five sons, that would probably be very impractical, nor would we see exact or similar replicas of the great Thunderbird crafts themselves, as unfortunate as that may be, since they're not exactly aerodynamic with some design features, but the basic principle doesn't seem too unusual. For a start, let's just go over some basic machinery that would be and whether I think it would be possible. (For reference I will go by craft name in the show to give an idea of equivalency).

• Thunderbird 1 for fast response, danger zone reconnaissance, and mobile control operations? I say YES! I mean the vehicle itself is basically just like a rocket and VTOL (vertical take off and landing) harrier jet hybrid, and if made aerodynamically enough could reach 15,000 mph (or around 24,000 km/h). It would need a lot of thrust power and fuel though, not to mention the fact it may be made less efficient with how it would likely need to go a lot higher than other aircrafts , ie. somewhere within 100,000 ft (3,480 metres), which would make the take off and landing procedures a lot longer since it would need a lot of time to gain and lose that height, along with good amounts of vacant airspace, not even accounting for weather conditions that it may encounter, especially in take off and landing.

• Thunderbird 2 for heavy-duty transporter that would take rescue equipment to the danger zone? Again, I say YES! We have heavy cargo planes that carry large vehicles nowadays, so maybe just making it faster could suffice for the job. However, it probably won't be as simple as scaling up the plane size, because of aerodynamics and all, so it may be more practical to have multiple crafts when needed, especially if one goes out of action and such. Not to also mention, it would have to be very light for it's size, and given the fact the Airbus A380 was very hard to design properly because of it's size and weight, it wouldn't be impossible, but it would be very hard! Weather conditions and take off and landing times would also apply in this case.

• Thunderbird 3 for space rescue and satellite maintenance? Well, I'd say YES! but I think this would be the most difficult to achieve. For one thing, space travel is pretty difficult and needs a lot of funding by itself. But even forgetting the cost for now, technologically speaking it would be hard. In the show the rocket was a Single Stage to Orbit reusable craft, and while it's not impossible, SSTO operations aren't as efficient as the usual methods, and rockets for the most part break up after taking off in stages because of the better efficiency (I think, but I am sure people will correct me if I am wrong). However, that kind of take off efficiency would be negated with the constant need to retrieve the pieces, which in themselves need to be reusable, and that would probably take time to do itself, especially compared to SSTO which would allow the craft to take off and land in one piece over and over again. Though weather conditions wouldn't affect it as much as the other two, space can be hostile itself such as asteroids and that. A hard one I must say.

• Thunderbird 4 for marine rescue? Probably one the easier ones, so I say YES! We can already develop submarines that can withstand pressures of the ocean, and there would probably just be a need to have the right equipment attachments. However, oceans are very hostile, with storms, tsunamis, and of course water pressure. I imagine that while the sub itself could withstand pressures, equipment may be crushed immediately. I don't know a lot about submarine operations though if I am honest, so I could either be overestimating or underestimating. Again, surely someone will correct me.

• Thunderbird 5 for satellite communications? Yeah, that's probably the easiest one to say YES!. We have manned satellites already, that can pick up phone signals, and so it would be easy to contact in the case of an emergency. I imagine there are a few changes to be made, but the fact that it was just a satellite for communications, I think the bigger obstacle would be efficiently picking up signals for calls, along with conditions in space. Unlike TB3, TB5 would be constantly at risk from asteroids and what not. Not to mention, we cannot use phones efficiently underground, so there isn't a way of knowing who is danger unless they contact them. Again, kind of one I'm not a huge expert with.

So technologically speaking I don't think it's so far-fetched to have an international rescue organisation with such high-tech equipment. But then we haven't yet talked about the biggest obstacle, which is MONEY! The fuel costs alone would be (no pun intended) astronomical, not to mention the cost of building the crafts, maintaining them, launching them, paying the staff to use them, the equipment that would be used for them etc., and I am not even sure there would be enough money even today for such a thing. Governments alone wouldn't pay for it, there would need to be private investment, and since it would be a not-for-profit organisation if it were to be for the purpose of rescue, there would be no incentives. Someone would need to pay for it in some way or another, the question is how much and who?

So with that said, I think technologically speaking it isn't far-fetched to have an organisation that would assist in disasters and preserve human life on a global scale with high-tech rescue equipment, but economically it may not be viable in the near future. I think it could be POSSIBLE to have investors and the money for it in future, but I think there would need to be some discussions behind it along with incentives to invest. But with the prospect of leisurely space travel in the future, along with natural and man-made disasters still occurring in the world, some may think such an organisation could even be inevitable if we are to help ourselves.

So after reading that lengthy post (again, I apologise, but I had a genuine case), what do you think? Maybe some of you will have economic or engineering expertise to help your opinions, or maybe some of you will know more about it in general. Once again, this thread isn't about the show Thunderbirds, it's about the possibility of a major rescue organisation existing now or in the future. But ultimately, do you think it's possible, or will it always just be fiction? Perhaps you can have your own cases below. Enjoy the discussion...

Possibly an evolution of the UN humanitarian assistance agencies in some way?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Possibly an evolution of the UN humanitarian assistance agencies in some way?

Since it'd be a humanitarian organisation, I imagine it could fit in well. I imagine every country might be paying funds towards it, so there's at least some costs covered (though maybe not even) and there would be equal benefits of countries being able to use it when needed.

 

[hexagon789]

Since it'd be a humanitarian organisation, I imagine it could fit in well. I imagine every country might be paying funds towards it, so there's at least some costs covered (though maybe not even) and there would be equal benefits of countries being able to use it when needed.

My view was it could perhaps be an evolution of the World Health Organisation. I agree the advantages to poorer countries being able to utilise such an organisation are very important but I think some nations may be reluctant to fund such an enterprise which is why I cast my vote for "Yes, but don't think it means it'll happen".

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

My view was it could perhaps be an evolution of the World Health Organisation. I agree the advantages to poorer countries being able to utilise such an organisation are very important but I think some nations may be reluctant to fund such an enterprise which is why I cast my vote for "Yes, but don't think it means it'll happen".

I actually just imagined the idea of richer nations being expected to pay more to fund it despite being less likely to use it in the scenario you mentioned. Poorer countries wouldn't be able to pay as much as wealthier ones but would likely get more use out of it. I imagine that would cause a few problems with diplomacy or global economics.

 

[hexagon789]

imagine that would cause a few problems with diplomacy or global economics.

I think countries with widespread health insurance schemes might be less inclined to contribute than those with universal healthcare systems.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I think countries with widespread health insurance schemes might be less inclined to contribute than those with universal healthcare systems.

That's where the US may be a problem. They are the world's richest country but don't use Universal Healthcare. There's a less incentives from the largest economy on earth.

 

[hexagon789]

That's where the US may be a problem. They are the world's richest country but don't use Universal Healthcare. There's a less incentives from the largest economy on earth.

The US was the main country I was thinking mightn't be too keen on it.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

The US was the main country I was thinking mightn't be too keen on it.

There'd also have to be a consistent humanitarian backing from world governments, and some countries are more self-serving than others. Say International Rescue existed today, I imagine Donald Trump wouldn't be too keen on funding such an international project with his "America First" policy.

 

[AlterEgo]

When would there be the unified political will to set up an organisation?

 

[hexagon789]

When would there be the unified political will to set up an organisation?

Without the Americans?

 

[AlterEgo]

Without the Americans?

No, without every developed nation, pretty much.

Why would people even in this country want to pay for a rescue system which will primarily be used in the developing world, as it duplicates the functions of most developed nations’ emergency and armed services?

What sorts of rescues are performed by this organisation that the Army, RAF or Navy couldn’t perform? (Except space, which is so incredibly unlikely and undertaken by the relevant space agencies anyway?)

 

[hexagon789]

No, without every developed nation, pretty much.

Why would people even in this country want to pay for a rescue system which will primarily be used in the developing world, as it duplicates the functions of most developed nations’ emergency and armed services?

What sorts of rescues are performed by this organisation that the Army, RAF or Navy couldn’t perform? (Except space, which is so incredibly unlikely and undertaken by the relevant space agencies anyway?)

There are plenty of people who resent foreigners using the NHS.

 

[AlterEgo]

There are plenty of people who resent foreigners using the NHS.

Yeah, and now we’re going to find Jeff Tracy to save them?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

When would there be the unified political will to set up an organisation?

I imagine setting it up may not be as much an issue as running it. Countries may join or take part in it, but it's keeping it going that's the issue. It's especially an issue in democratic nations where national interests will change in the short-term. As said, Obama may have been one to sign a treaty to form an organisation, but with Trump's "America First" policy I imagine there would be a few criticisms from him and supporters. Some of the countries wouldn't get as much out of it despite maybe paying more than those that do. Now of course it could be possible for a billionaire to set it up like in Thunderbirds, but who on earth would have such wealth? The fact it's a private organisation wouldn't be helpful if some militant nations would refuse to let them fly in their airspace, and because they didn't agree to the formation of the organisation, who would the rescuers be to argue?

What sorts of rescues are performed by this organisation that the Army, RAF or Navy couldn’t perform? (Except space, which is so incredibly unlikely and undertaken by the relevant space agencies anyway?)

Mine collapses? Avalanches? I imagine a few since Gerry Anderson was inspired by a mining disaster in West Germany where they lacked sufficient means to drill out an escape shaft, and so they had to spend a considerable amount of time retrieving and using heavy-bore machines from Bremen by rail to get them out, and this significantly reduced the chances of a successful rescue. Originally 29 miners were killed and another 21 were trapped underground, but eventually only 11 were rescued. It was the thought of having a swifter response from an international organisation that gave Anderson the idea of the original show, and I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that some disasters on a similar scale still happen today, even in developed nations.

 

[AlterEgo]

Mine collapses? Avalanches? I imagine a few since Gerry Anderson was inspired by a mining disaster in West Germany where they lacked sufficient means to drill out an escape shaft, and so they had to spend a considerable amount of time retrieving and using heavy-bore machines from Bremen by rail to get them out, and this significantly reduced the chances of a successful rescue. Originally 29 miners were killed and another 21 were trapped underground, but eventually only 11 were rescued. It was the thought of having a swifter response from an international organisation that gave Anderson the idea of the original show, and I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that some disasters on a similar scale still happen today, even in developed nations.

Right, so if we take the original Thunderbirds they had the Mole, a specialised drilling machine to rescue people in mine collapses or even avalanches maybe.

Nice machine. Let’s say someone builds one.

Now why would the US Army or the British Army *not* have that machine once it’s invented? What kind of specialised equipment would be in the hands of an international rescue agency that wasn’t available to the armed or emergency services of wealthy developed nations?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Right, so if we take the original Thunderbirds they had the Mole, a specialised drilling machine to rescue people in mine collapses or even avalanches maybe.

Nice machine. Let’s say someone builds one.

Now why would the US Army or the British Army *not* have that machine once it’s invented? What kind of specialised equipment would be in the hands of an international rescue agency that wasn’t available to the armed or emergency services of wealthy developed nations?

To what interest would it serve the military to have such a machine? The Armed Forces are not designed for search and rescue, they are essentially the opposite in that they kill and destroy for a living. To give them such equipment wouldn't be so necessary, and as for emergency services, well it may be somewhat practical to have it for some emergency services, but then there would have to be a place to keep it and a way to transport it, and I imagine you would just be localising the operations of an international agency to the local agencies. Unfortunately, some nations wouldn't be able to afford it and would likely need an international agency to help them out, but then you do have the issue we raised earlier in that some developed nations would be in dispute over how much they should pay.

 

[Busaholic]

The United Nations was set up with such high hopes. The best book written on the U.N. is entitled 'And We Did Nothing'. Been out some years, but any update would have to be, depressingly, just more of the same.

 

[AlterEgo]

To what interest would it serve the military to have such a machine? The Armed Forces are not designed for search and rescue, they are essentially the opposite in that they kill and destroy for a living. To give them such equipment wouldn't be so necessary, and as for emergency services, well it may be somewhat practical to have it for some emergency services, but then there would have to be a place to keep it and a way to transport it, and I imagine you would just be localising the operations of an international agency to the local agencies. Unfortunately, some nations wouldn't be able to afford it and would likely need an international agency to help them out, but then you do have the issue we raised earlier in that some developed nations would be in dispute over how much they should pay.

Can you think of any current rescue technology in the world which is not used by developed countries’ military or emergency services?

If you think Thunderbird One could exist, why wouldn’t the US Air Force have it, or something similar?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Can you think of any current rescue technology in the world which is not used by developed countries’ military or emergency services?

If you think Thunderbird One could exist, why wouldn’t the US Air Force have it, or something similar?

Space rescue technology for one thing, and though it is of course very unlikely and not so much necessary in this day and age, the fact we have people like Richard Branson wanting leisurely space tourism means we could eventually end up needing it of some sorts.

As for why the USAF wouldn't have something like Thunderbird 1, well they kind of do. As I said, Thunderbird 1 is merely a hybrid of a rocket and harrier jet. It's designed like a rocket but it's functionality is pretty much the same as a VTOL jet aside from vertical take-off and landing, which is only when it is launched from the swimming pool. Other times it is done in horizontal flight. A military jet can easily survey and area to see what is needed and what isn't. Another thing to remember is that I didn't strictly say Thunderbird 1 itself could itself, I said it's equivalent could. I did kind of say earlier as well that such an organisation wouldn't really use any replicas of the original craft.

To be honest I don't really think we're in that much disagreement, since we both see political issues and willpower arising from either setting up an international agency or keeping one going.

 

[AlterEgo]

Space rescue technology for one thing, and though it is of course very unlikely and not so much necessary in this day and age, the fact we have people like Richard Branson wanting leisurely space tourism means we could eventually end up needing it of some sorts. As for why the USAF wouldn't have something like Thunderbird 1, well they kind of do. As I said, Thunderbird 1 is merely a hybrid of a rocket and harrier jet. It's designed like a rocket but it's functionality is pretty much the same as a VTOL jet aside from vertical take-off and landing, which is only when it is launched from the swimming pool. Other times it is done in horizontal flight. A military jet can easily survey and area to see what is needed and what isn't.

So if developed nations had this technology, which they would, why would they want this fantastic machinery to be in the hands of some third party? The Thunderbirds machinery was supposed to be the most advanced in the world, which is why they lived in seclusion (incidentally at the most distant point from any given realistic rescue on the planet!).

You’ll have International Rescue when you have world peace - note that there was a World Government in the TV show.

It isn’t going to happen.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

So if developed nations had this technology, which they would, why would they want this fantastic machinery to be in the hands of some third party? The Thunderbirds machinery was supposed to be the most advanced in the world, which is why they lived in seclusion (incidentally at the most distant point from any given realistic rescue on the planet!).

You’ll have International Rescue when you have world peace - note that there was a World Government in the TV show.

It isn’t going to happen.

I would honestly put more faith in an International Rescue than world peace, mate. The only thing that stops humans ruthlessly killing each other in the western world is laws and social standards. Also, I edited my previous post to include this statement...

To be honest I don't really think we're in that much disagreement, since we both see political issues and willpower arising from either setting up an international agency or keeping one going.

EDIT: Also, you wouldn't mind me using this information you gave me if I were to ever cover this kind of topic in a YouTube video would you?

 

[trash80]

To what interest would it serve the military to have such a machine? The Armed Forces are not designed for search and rescue, they are essentially the opposite in that they kill and destroy for a living. To give them such equipment wouldn't be so necessary, and as for emergency services, well it may be somewhat practical to have it for some emergency services, but then there would have to be a place to keep it and a way to transport it, and I imagine you would just be localising the operations of an international agency to the local agencies. Unfortunately, some nations wouldn't be able to afford it and would likely need an international agency to help them out, but then you do have the issue we raised earlier in that some developed nations would be in dispute over how much they should pay.

Search & rescue and humanitarian relief is one of the roles of the armed forces, thats why you have the likes of SAR helicopters in the RAF and US Navy hospital ships. Of course they all have a wartime role too but the armed forces don't just sit around doing nothing waiting for a war.

 

[The Ham]

If it were a government funded world wide operation then it would be simple to keep Trump on side, ensure that the US gets employment from it. If they don't pay up the staff get deployed in another country and so it hurts the US employment and economy of it is withdrawn (as although say 1000 jobs are lost the spending that those people would provide and the tax on that spending and on the pay in the first place would go through the economy several times over and so would be worth the initial spend, even if we more than the cost of those staff).

Add on top of that the equipment spend, which if the US won't pay would be significant less likely to be spent there as other countries would be pushing for the spend too be made in their country (maybe even offering to cover the difference if the US was cheaper as they would gain more back in jobs and employment).

 

[The Ham]

Currently there are countries that have dedicated emergency teams/equipment for certain tasks. The classic example is there's a few EU countries (including the UK) with teams that often get sent to rescue people from collapsed buildings.

As such I could see that there could easily be an IR directory with lots of contact details of tabs with the right kit and skills. Over time it could be that gaps in those specialises are internationally funded which could result in a quasi International Rescue.

 

[OneOffDave]

For me, the big questions are about how often the kit would get used and how would you keep skills current if there are a wide variety of bits of kit to play with? If you look at the ambulance service HART, they spend a significant part of their time training.

I don't think you'd need a manned satellite like Thunderbird 5, just a small constellation of geosynchronous satellites that can relay signals down to a base station. Much cheaper and no heavy/complicated life support systems.

From the work I've been involved in in deploying teams to disaster areas, one of the big hurdles is getting clearance to enter from the governments of the countries involved and being allowed to take kit like GPS and satellite phones/broadband in. A lot don't like drones either

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Search & rescue and humanitarian relief is one of the roles of the armed forces, thats why you have the likes of SAR helicopters in the RAF and US Navy hospital ships. Of course they all have a wartime role too but the armed forces don't just sit around doing nothing waiting for a war.

I neglected to remember this fact. Thank you for the reminder.

For me, the big questions are about how often the kit would get used and how would you keep skills current if there are a wide variety of bits of kit to play with? If you look at the ambulance service HART, they spend a significant part of their time training.

I don't think you'd need a manned satellite like Thunderbird 5, just a small constellation of geosynchronous satellites that can relay signals down to a base station. Much cheaper and no heavy/complicated life support systems.

From the work I've been involved in in deploying teams to disaster areas, one of the big hurdles is getting clearance to enter from the governments of the countries involved and being allowed to take kit like GPS and satellite phones/broadband in. A lot don't like drones either

It seems that your work gives you a good background to judge (excellent). As for the equipment usage, I actually did have an afterthought in regards to that. Since we have no real life counterpart to go on I will refer to the show machines to get an idea of the use-cost ratio.

With Thunderbird 2, over the course of the two years in the show, it was used in all but one episode, and was involved in the majority of rescue missions. As such it’s real life equivalent would likely be a good one to use since it would be the one to transport all the heavy duty tools to disaster zones. Unlike the show, the craft wouldn’t need to be fancy looking, it would just need to be like a large plane with VTOL capabilities and aerodynamic enough to get to at least 5,000mph (or 8,000km/h). Sounds like good value.

By contrast though, Thunderbird 3 was rarely used at all. Over the course of two years it was involved in just three rescue missions. It was of course used monthly to help change shifts in the satellite, but since it is unmanned in your case that wouldn’t be happening. Furthermore, unlike TB2, TB3’s real life equivalent would have to still be an SSTO rocket for the best efficiency. For this cost it doesn’t seem like the best value.

With the background work you mentioned though, do you ever think an international agency like this could ever exist, or would politics and global will be too divided to make it work? Would it have to be done on a local scale too?

 

[OneOffDave]

With the background work you mentioned though, do you ever think an international agency like this could ever exist, or would politics and global will be too divided to make it work? Would it have to be done on a local scale too?

I think what makes it unlikely is the rarity of the need for all the really big specialist kit. There are quite well rehearsed routines for sending USAR and medical teams to disasters and a number of countries have specialisms in other areas of disaster relief. The UK is often the lead on Logistics and Germany often covers water/sanitation. There is a UK rapid support team that can be deployed at the request of the WHO to provide specialist advice in outbreaks of infectious disease as well. Most recently they have been deployed to Nigeria https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-public-health-rapid-support-team-deploys-to-nigeria

The other big issue is how fast you'd get the specialist kit to the disaster area. A lifter as big as Thunderbird 2 would be like a slightly shorter, fatter A380 with the pods of course. TB2 had a cruise speed of 2000mph, quite a bit faster than anything we've currently got and it had the fuel range too. I think you'd be looking at 48-72hrs to get anything on scene if it was ready to go as soon as you asked for it

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

The other big issue is how fast you'd get the specialist kit to the disaster area. A lifter as big as Thunderbird 2 would be like a slightly shorter, fatter A380 with the pods of course. TB2 had a cruise speed of 2000mph, quite a bit faster than anything we've currently got and it had the fuel range too. I think you'd be looking at 48-72hrs to get anything on scene if it was ready to go as soon as you asked for it

Actually, we have had faster machines beforehand. In particular the North American X-15, which according to Wikipedia.

The X-15's official world record for the highest speed ever recorded by a manned, powered aircraft, set in October 1967 when William J. Knight flew Mach 6.72 at 102,100 feet (31,120 m), a speed of 4,520 miles per hour (7,274 km/h; 2,021 m/s), has remained unchallenged as of April 2018

Of course, that speed is still probably not fast enough to get to the furthest danger zone within a sufficient amount of hours. Not to mention, the North American X-15 was nothing more than a small fighter jet, quite a far cry from a bulky Airbus A380. Not to mention, fuel and thrust power would need to be higher to transport such a large craft. I certainly think we could soon reach such technological advancements, but in this day and age I doubt it very much. Just out of interest, what did you say in the poll at the top?

 

[peri]

But what do you mean by "Could"?
May be before your time but I remember some brilliant documentaries on the telly.
An early version of "24 hours in A & E" or "Police Cameras Action".