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.
- +Comment Anti-Facebook Ello: Here's why we're still in beta. SPAMGASM!
- Vid+Pics Microsoft WINDOWS 10: Seven ATE Nine. Or Eight did really
- Analysis Windows 10: One for the suits, right Microsoft? Or so one THOUGHT
- Xbox hackers snared US ARMY APACHE GUNSHIP ware - Feds
- George Clooney, WikiLeaks' lawyer wife hand out burner phones to wedding guests