Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UA 1093

windbornesystems.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 117 posts

Re: UA 1093

#13

Post by barbazoo »

consp wrote: post #4
JCM9 wrote: post #3

Interesting. The “big sky” theory has its limits. Curious too to learn more about what data, if any, is shared with ATC on the location of these balloons. Airspace is regularly blocked off for rockets and other use, but for many weather balloons the theory is 1) the sky is big, and 2) designs are meant to be that a strike with an aircraft wouldn’t cause significant damage. If this was an impact with a balloon payload…

Isn't this pure statistics? The big sky isn't as big since planes always follow certain patterns and so do weather balloons (because wind also has patterns). Now someone needs to do some black magic with that model and calculate the arrival time distribution of accidents and you get to see if this is an outlier or not.

> planes always follow certain patterns

At any particular and above a certain flight level maybe.

Re: UA 1093

#14

Post by pcthrowaway »

consp wrote: post #4
JCM9 wrote: post #3

Interesting. The “big sky” theory has its limits. Curious too to learn more about what data, if any, is shared with ATC on the location of these balloons. Airspace is regularly blocked off for rockets and other use, but for many weather balloons the theory is 1) the sky is big, and 2) designs are meant to be that a strike with an aircraft wouldn’t cause significant damage. If this was an impact with a balloon payload…

Isn't this pure statistics? The big sky isn't as big since planes always follow certain patterns and so do weather balloons (because wind also has patterns). Now someone needs to do some black magic with that model and calculate the arrival time distribution of accidents and you get to see if this is an outlier or not.

The birthday paradox seems relevant here as well: With 23 people, your chance of having a "collision" in birthdays is over 50%. With more objects in the sky, the chance of collision is likely greater than one would assume given the space they have to occupy.

Re: UA 1093

#15

Post by Gravityloss »

Who would have believed, what was suspected of being a mysterious malevolence coming from outer space, was just a quaint weather balloon all along!

Somehow that rings some faint bell but can't quite put my finger on it...

Re: UA 1093

#16

Post by bombcar »

Gravityloss wrote: post #15

Who would have believed, what was suspected of being a mysterious malevolence coming from outer space, was just a quaint weather balloon all along! Somehow that rings some faint bell but can't quite put my finger on it...

It's probably a decorated bell, some form of art bell ...

Re: UA 1093

#17

Post by artursapek »

blackcatsec wrote: post #8
modeless wrote: post #6

> The system is designed to not pose a risk to human life in the worst case event of a collision. This is what the FAA 101 and ICAO weight limits are for. And indeed, there were no serious injuries and no depressurization event to my knowledge as a result of the collision. This seems close to a worst case scenario for this failure mode, and everyone is still OK. I consider that good engineering.

A reminder for those in the back, government regulation made this safe (FAA limits). And yes, this is good engineering, but through decades of learning crowdfunded with tax dollars.

Anyone arguing against government regulation as a whole is completely delusional. Companies can't be trusted to regulate themselves.

Re: UA 1093

#18

Post by gnabgib »

Discussions

(399 points, 2 days ago, 222 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45636285

(35 points, 2 days ago, 55 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45633191

Related: It was a weather balloon, not space debris, that struck a United Airlines plane (12 points) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45652120

Post reply on HN