<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Do you think they adjusted the orbit so the tragedy wouldnt leave debris over the states like it did last time? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />No. This was an ISS mission; they therefore had no choice about the orbit. It had to be an orbit that would get them to the station. That's why the reentry track has such a dramatic angle to it -- it's the same angle as the station's orbital inclination. STS-114 would've come in along a similar track (although it could also have come from the north, depending on the timing) even if the Columbia accident hadn't happened.<br /><br />There has been some talk of having shuttles along less dramatically inclined orbits (e.g. the 28 degree orbit of the Hubble Space Telescope) land on the West Coast. These would be flights that would follow a more overland reentry track, much like STS-107. This would minimize damage to folks on the ground in the event of another breakup during reentry. But no decisions have been made, and probably wouldn't be made until such a mission flew. It costs a lot more to land on the West Coast than the East Coast because of the expense and delay of ferrying the Orbiter back to Florida afterwards. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em> -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>