Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Viking2002
It would seem that British denial knows no end. They're still referring to it as the "landing" site.
Sure.
7 posted on 01/06/2004 10:54:37 AM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: SJSAMPLE
If this is all they have, then any possibility no matter how remote has to be explored.

Is it possible for an orbiting satelite to take a picture of the potential "splat" site? (is it possible they used the rejected rover parachutes?)

I think it would be just as important to know why it failed.
9 posted on 01/06/2004 10:58:43 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: SJSAMPLE
"My bet is that during the landing phase, one of the steps did not go as planned,"

If he's right, I hate it when that happens.

A step not going as planned, that is. Not the bet.

17 posted on 01/06/2004 11:22:50 AM PST by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson