Not a good week for space then.

In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 3:03:51 AM UTC-8, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Monday, November 3, 2014 2:57:04 AM UTC-8, Jeff Findley wrote:

This sort of thing grates on my nerves. An "explosion" is a very
specific thing (in layman's terms, "boom!"). Breaking apart by means of
aerodynamic forces is not an "explosion". Reporters need to get this
sort of thing right.

Well, the initial reports were being made from a less-than-ideal vantage
point, so there's lots of opportunity to be confused.

Saying there was an "explosion" is clearly an incorrect conclusion of
sorts.

We can say that now, but it was less clear when only ground observer reports
were available.

You can argue that weasel words were needed ... "/appears/ to have
exploded" ... but headline writers don't usually have room for weasel words,
and witnesses often forget to add them.

For the initial reports, it would have been sufficient to say that the
aircraft broke apart while in the air. It was unnecessary to speculate
why the aircraft broke apart because that was not known at the time.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer