----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary L. Nunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 4:29 PM Subject: RE: Wild Shuttle Speculation
> > > ABCNews is highlighting a "thermal differentiation in the > > left wing" where a piece of insulation struck the wing upon lift-off. > > > It is at least very remotely possible that the loose > > insulation was the result of a sabotage/terrorism attempt > > that failed during liftoff, but ended up producing enough > > damage to cause disaster on the landing. > > > Of course this is all speculation and possibly stating the obvious, but > even if they didn't have the robot arm, it almost seems like it would be > irresponsible (for whoever makes the decision) to attempt re-entry > without a visual inspection knowing that they took a hit of any kind at > launch. It seems like there would be more than one way to make a visual > inspection - from going out in a space suit to having someone on the ISS > look out a window with binoculars. It seems highly coincidental that > they experienced sensor malfunctions in the same area where the debris > hit during launch. > > At the last news briefing they said that even if there was damage that > they could have not done anything about it. That seemed like a very > stupid thing to say on NASA's part. Certainly they would not have > attempted re-entry if they had known about any damage? > > > > The Shuttle did not have a robot arm loaded, and thus the > > crew could not inspect the damage will in orbit. (Columbia > > was also too heavy to dock with the ISS.) > > Ok, this is my space mechanic ignorance showing, but how could the > shuttle have possibly been too heavy to dock in a weightless > environment? > Not enough fuel to move that much mass that far. The shuttle is weightless in space but not massless.<G> rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
