I don't know what this means or what this is worth, by my Rocket Scientist, who works on shuttle stuff, was not called into work; I just spoke to him and he was driving between Houston and Galvaston, on his was to repair a different sort of ship. It was the first he'd heard of it. I'm thinking that means they're trying to keep things as quiet as they can while they figure things out.
The CBC report says twice, a little hysterically, that it isn't terrorism, there's no indication that it might be terrorism, but NASA have never lost a craft coming in for landing and there was an Israeli astronaut aboard.
Until they said that, I wasn't thinking about it, I was thinking accident, and it probably was accident, but oh hell's delight.
The CBC report says twice, a little hysterically, that it isn't terrorism, there's no indication that it might be terrorism, but NASA have never lost a craft coming in for landing and there was an Israeli astronaut aboard.
There's no weapon on earth that could shoot down something that was moving that fast, from that high. I think it's understandable for people's minds to leap there, but there really is no way.
wcg says that people in the space science industry called Columbia "the penguin," because "it's a big black-and-white bird that can't fly." It had more maintenance problems than any other shuttle. As horrific and tragic as the accident was, it seems reasonably consistent with the shuttle's history of malfunctions.
Won't stop the government from taking away more of your freedoms and liberties. TWA 800 was an accident, too, but it was still used as justification for the photo ID requirement for boarding airplanes.
Reassure me that the thing falling off on take-off, that wasn't considered significant enough to abort, but which might have damaged the shielding, couldn't have been sabotaged?
teinedreugan tells me that they had a bit of insulation come off during takeoff and hit the left wing; the engineers on the gorund said they figured that the damage was minor. But now he's thinking that it may have been a sign of a structural problem aroudn the fuel tanks.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
B
From:
no subject
Until they said that, I wasn't thinking about it, I was thinking accident, and it probably was accident, but oh hell's delight.
From:
no subject
There's no weapon on earth that could shoot down something that was moving that fast, from that high. I think it's understandable for people's minds to leap there, but there really is no way.
From:
Shooting Penguins in Flight
To be specific, 40 miles up and moving at 4200 miles per hour. No, this had to have been an accident.
From:
Re: Shooting Penguins in Flight
B
From:
Re: Shooting Penguins in Flight
From:
no subject