Corrected entry: So what if the shuttle loses power? Once you re-enter the atmosphere safely, the shuttle does have ejection seats. Granted ejecting at those speeds is dangerous, but it beats the chances an unplanned, manual descent gives.
Grumpy Scot
13th Oct 2003
Space Cowboys (2000)
13th Oct 2003
Space Cowboys (2000)
Corrected entry: If the satellite is that dangerous, why not just shoot it down with a tactical nuclear missile? It would destroy the satellite and its missiles and 1000 miles up is more than enough to ensure that radioactive fallout would not re-enter the atmosphere. Or better yet, strap a nuclear device to the side and blow it up by remote instead of going to all the trouble to disarm it. The satellite doesn't react to physical contact, only radar.
Correction: How many other satellites, worth billions of dollars, would be destroyed by the EMP? What would effect the loss of communication satellites have on the world's economy? Loss of weather satellites? Loss of spy satellites?
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Correction: Only the Enterprise and Columbia orbiters were fitted with ejection seats, for the pilot and commander positions during the initial test missions STS-1 through STS-4. During later missions the ejection seats were disabled because it was not possible to provide ejection capability for additional crew positions, and later on they were replaced with non-ejection seats which were lighter.