<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Satellite Carnage</title>
	<link>http://www.mikedidonato.com/2008/02/08/3415/</link>
	<description>It's hard being a superstar</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 05:29:18 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: shamus</title>
		<link>http://www.mikedidonato.com/2008/02/08/3415/#comment-73556</link>
		<author>shamus</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:46:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mikedidonato.com/2008/02/08/3415/#comment-73556</guid>
		<description>Turns out that's what they are doing Timmy 

http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/wonkette/full/~3/235773949/so-this-satellite-bombing-is-actually-happening</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Turns out that&#8217;s what they are doing Timmy </p>
<p><a href="http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/wonkette/full/~3/235773949/so-this-satellite-bombing-is-actually-happening" rel="nofollow">http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/wonkette/full/~3/235773949/so-this-satellite-bombing-is-actually-happening</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jesse</title>
		<link>http://www.mikedidonato.com/2008/02/08/3415/#comment-73038</link>
		<author>Jesse</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2008 00:26:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mikedidonato.com/2008/02/08/3415/#comment-73038</guid>
		<description>My wife was quick to point out that the [unspecified] assumption that the whole thing comes down in one piece in the first place is a bad one, and that little bits are more likely to come down over a much wider area anyway.  I don't even want to speculate over how many pieces and of what size, but suffice to say, it probably increases the likelihood by some fraction that a person could be hit.  However, in the article below they are quick to point out that when the Columbia shuttle came down, it reigned debris over two states and no one took a hit, not that one case proves any points.

http://www.news.com/2100-11397_3-6229197.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My wife was quick to point out that the [unspecified] assumption that the whole thing comes down in one piece in the first place is a bad one, and that little bits are more likely to come down over a much wider area anyway.  I don&#8217;t even want to speculate over how many pieces and of what size, but suffice to say, it probably increases the likelihood by some fraction that a person could be hit.  However, in the article below they are quick to point out that when the Columbia shuttle came down, it reigned debris over two states and no one took a hit, not that one case proves any points.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.news.com/2100-11397_3-6229197.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.news.com/2100-11397_3-6229197.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: To the B</title>
		<link>http://www.mikedidonato.com/2008/02/08/3415/#comment-72985</link>
		<author>To the B</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:54:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mikedidonato.com/2008/02/08/3415/#comment-72985</guid>
		<description>Couldn't they just nail the sucker with a cruise missle as it re-enters?  If you could blow it up and disperse it's mass over a larger area, each individual piece would do less damage, and potentially burn up even quicker with the increased overall surface area.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Couldn&#8217;t they just nail the sucker with a cruise missle as it re-enters?  If you could blow it up and disperse it&#8217;s mass over a larger area, each individual piece would do less damage, and potentially burn up even quicker with the increased overall surface area.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
