Looks likely to be Edwards?

Just goes to show, you cannot control the weather!

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________

Does it?
They still seem favourable for kennedy.

What is the cost in $$$ at landing at Edwards instead of kennedy? Is this a
factor at all? If the risk is demeed say 1:10,000 chance of weather being a
problem is that acceptable to save millions of dollars?

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
. uk...
Just goes to show, you cannot control the weather!

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:

__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________

DarkD wrote:
Does it?
They still seem favourable for kennedy.

The weather still looks pretty bad:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/radar/loop/D.../si.kmlb.shtml

It looks worse than during the three previous wave offs.

Simon Howson

"Simon Howson" wrote in message
...
DarkD wrote:
Does it?
They still seem favourable for kennedy.

The weather still looks pretty bad:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/radar/loop/D.../si.kmlb.shtml

It looks worse than during the three previous wave offs.

Simon Howson

Yeah its official now. Edwards is the go

DarkD wrote:

Yeah its official now. Edwards is the go

Yeah, I'm glued to NASA-TV via broadband. :-)

Simon Howson

Simon Howson wrote in news:at_Je.77130
:

DarkD wrote:

Yeah its official now. Edwards is the go

Yeah, I'm glued to NASA-TV via broadband. :-)

And I've given up propping my eyelids open with toothpicks
and am going to bed. I doubt we'll see much at Edwards
this time of night.

--Damon, on PDT, way to the north of Edwards