Re: OT: Satellite Collision

From: Patrick Wiggins (paw@wirelessbeehive.com)
Date: Thu Feb 12 2009 - 03:13:37 UTC

  • Next message: Dale Ireland: "RE: Iridium, Cosmos collide"

    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