TexAgs91 said:
Technically yes, it's above the Karmen line. As far as calculating drag on the debris, no, it is not in a complete vacuum. There's still enough atmosphere to apply a drag force on debris. Since the debris is lower mass than Ship, it is affected more by the drag force. As it gets lower, that force goes up exponentially.
Now answer my question
When it exploded at 146km over the earth's surface, did the resulting debris disappear?
Was it the explosion that ATC was warning pilots about, or was it the debris?
So when you said "not quite space" what you meant was technically space.
Before bothering to answer your questions, let's validity test whether or not they need to be answered.
Does her post say that the debris disappeared and that no disruption to flights occurred? Does it say that absent mitigation strategies that the debris still posed no risk to airplanes?
Re-consider that she is not some random dumb woman on the internet (I agree, there are many) with no expertise in what she's commenting about that you presumed her to be and then re-read what she said.
What is the purpose of her post?
The purpose of the post is to convey to people unfamiliar with flight/space travel that the ship blowing up at 146 km was minimally 84 miles away in "not not quite space" also known as "technically space." Far from any flight in the area. That the potential debris area is calculated in advance of the ship's flight, that airlines are notified of the potential debris area and advised to have contingences if a mishap occurs, and that in the event of a mishap they are notified to execute contingences to avoid the falling debris.
That when discussing the amount of disruption to air travel that occurred you need to consider the amount of disruption that is already accepted in the form of weather delays/diversions and presidential delays/diversion that are substantially larger than what the IFT-7 mishap caused. That is not a comment on the urgency of the response, but rather the scale of disruption.
In other words your criticisms are based upon what you imagined she said based upon the presumption she's some dumb woman rather than what she actually said. And what she's actually doing is explaining to the some dumb woman you presumed her to be that the level of risk posed to airplanes in the area was substantially lower than that some dumb woman assumes.
