1 post • joined 20 Feb 2008
I am a software engineer working on a student satellite project, and we've spent a lot of time developing contingency plans in case our satellite doesn't function as we planned. WHY, on a government satellite fueled by hazardous hydrazine fuel, would the government not plan a contingency for the current case, where they can't communicate with the satellite. They knew ahead of time that without thrusters, the satellite would crash to Earth. The obvious plan would be to expel the hazardous fuel in the case that the satellite can't communicate with the ground, so that when it fell to Earth, it would not be carrying it. I hate conspiracy theories, but this situation screams out to me as a purposeful excuse for testing space weapons.
- Just TWO climate committee MPs contradict IPCC: The two with SCIENCE degrees
- 14 antivirus apps found to have security problems
- Apple winks at parents: C'mon, get your kid a tweaked Macbook Pro
- Feature Scotland's BIG question: Will independence cost me my broadband?
- Driverless car SQUADRONS to hit Britain in 2015