I find that I must apologize, as I didn’t notice that this thread was revived in GQ. I stated a few facts, but mostly my opinion, and theis in not an appropriate place to do so.
BTW, here are some pictures of Columbia taken from the fround a few days before the attempted landing. Take a look at high res selections, and think about what might have been discernable had the shuttle been oriented belly-down.
Not much. The hi-res photo is a big fuzzy blur, unless there was a huge gaping hole in the underside of the orbiter, we wouldn’t have been able to see squat. The only thing that might have provided us with a good visual inspection of the shuttle is one of the orbiting spy sats.
Not much. The hi-res photo is a big fuzzy blur, unless there was a huge gaping hole in the underside of the orbiter, we wouldn’t have been able to see squat. The only thing that might have provided us with a good visual inspection of the shuttle is one of the orbiting spy sats.
Not much. The hi-res photo is a big fuzzy blur, unless there was a huge gaping hole in the underside of the orbiter, we wouldn’t have been able to see squat. The only thing that might have provided us with a good visual inspection of the shuttle is one of the orbiting spy sats.
NASA is now back-tracking and claiming that it could in fact have attempted a rescue mission. It would be risky, of course, but all space missions are.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33119-2003May23.html?nav=hptop_tb