I'm waiting to see what conspiracy theory people make out of this. :) patrick On 11 Feb 2009, at 20:01 , Richard Fredrick wrote: > Purely as an armchair quarterback (sorry, I don't have an > international equivalent at hand), but it seems that since Iridium > 33 was an "active" satellite and should have some maneuverability, > that satellite should have, ahem, gotten out of the way. It also > seems to me that an entity (who controls them now that they're a > U.S. military asset?) that has invested millions? of dollars in a > satellite program would be interested in keeping them out of harms > way. > > Last thing that strikes me as unusual about this fiasco is that it > took around 24 hours for the news to filter down to the civilian > level. I wonder what the initial official reaction was. > > Sincerely, > Richard Fredrick ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Frequently Asked Questions, SeeSat-L archive: http://www.satobs.org/seesat/seesatindex.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 12 2009 - 03:15:13 UTC