shaddack at ns.arachne.cz
Sat Feb 1 16:42:18 PST 2003
> Interesting event, eh? Pretty well timed. They're already saying it wasn't a
> missle, which may be.
Or they want us to think so, playing double-bluff. (It isn't possible to
get a missile up there quickly enough and accurately enough to hit so high
and fast target. (Though one can never rule out an infrared MIRACL-class
laser. But a plain vanilla mechanical failure seems more probable.
Remember, most airplanes that crash don't contain any bomb, and the most
vicious terrorist is lousy maintenance.)
> Could have been a bomb tho -- pretty weird that it's the first problem
> they've ever had with a landing, and just happens to have the Israeli
Once it had to be the first time, especially with the cost-cutting so
common these days, and with the careerism and bureaucracy that thrives in
the management of every big organization.
> Over Texas too. If it weren't terrs, then it must be Allah warning the
> Great Satan to watch his step.
Over Texas it was in just the right flight phase to experience problems;
just the point where the shuttle was about to switch from spacecraft to
aircraft mode, switching to alternate control systems.
> Interesting too that Saddam's eldest son just warned that 9/11 would be a
> picnic compared to what will happen if the US invades. And then there's those
> 3,000 Iraqis the feebs said they were looking for....
Saddam's family is known for having bigger mouths than capabilities.
Especially in this case, I'd bet my shoes on Murphy; Columbia was an old
lady that had her problems even before the launch itself. I'd bet on
something stupid, like loosened tiles or computer malfunction (though more
likely the tiles, as the computers are backed up). Remember Challenger,
where the fault was a stupid O-ring.
Shame Feynmann is dead :((( I'd LOVE to read his report about this one.
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy