Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 00:39:15 +0100 From: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> To: "f.johan.beisser" <jan@caustic.org> Cc: Larry Sica <lomion@mac.com>, Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>, John Martinez <rolnif@mac.com>, <barbish@a1poweruser.com>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: oh my god the nasa shuttle blewup Message-ID: <a05200f11ba64ad20209a@[10.0.1.2]> In-Reply-To: <20030202231612.B63914-100000@pogo.caustic.org> References: <20030202231612.B63914-100000@pogo.caustic.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:30 PM -0800 2003/02/02, f.johan.beisser wrote:
> the shuttles are past their original useful life expectancy. we'll see
> more "minor" failures before another spectacular one.
Theoretically, they were designed for 100 missions, and Columbia
was only about 1/4 the way to the end of its life.
> i don't know of a single SAM or AAM that can get to that altitude, it
> would have been detected, and on radar well before hitting the shuttle.
> the return flight is plotted out, and very heavily monitored by many
> different agencies (FAA, NASA, USAF, etc) for anything that might be a
> problem.
It wasn't a missile, that much I am convinced of. Or, if it was,
it was a missile at higher altitude and the gov't wants to cover it
up -- maybe because it was fired by some supposedly non-existent and
probably illegal satellite platform, or maybe a very high-flying and
still highly classified near space interceptor aircraft. However, I
find those possibilities highly unlikely.
> getting a bomb to the shuttle is what's left for an external cause. very
> unlikely. NASA's launch facilities are well guarded, and the launch
> vehicle is heavily protected and examined before even getting to the
> launch pad. once there, it's under more guard, cameras, and key. NASA has
> no qualms in stopping or delaying a launch for any reason, we've seen that
> over the last 10 years.
I'm also not concerned about a bomb. I'm much more concerned
about sabotage, especially since it could be extremely subtle -- such
as filling the tires with Oxygen instead of Nitrogen.
> this is a "simple" failure. something went horribly wrong, and there's
> nothing that could have been done to prevent it.
I hope it was a simple failure, but if so then I believe that
there could have been something done to prevent it. Whatever that
something is, it will most likely be done most of the time over the
next group of shuttle launches, until something else goes wrong and
we lose yet another one.
--
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+
!w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a05200f11ba64ad20209a>