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

101–110 of 117 posts

Re: UA 1093

#101

Post by toast0 »

kawfey wrote: post #96
toast0 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a 2.5 lb ground weight balloon, a radar reflector is likely still too heavy. The lightest weight marine radar reflector [1] I could find is about half a pound. [1] https://www.westmarine.com/plastimo-tubular-radar-reflector-...

you can make one out of cardboard and aluminum foil (better yet, aluminized mylar (space blanket) on foam) on the order of a few oz. https://www.instructables.com/Lightweight-Radar-Reflector/ A radar reflector such as that, or this ( https://overlookhorizon.com/product/radar-reflector/ , which is ~300g) has roughly the same RCS as a small (piper cherokee) to medium (gulfstream) sized aircraft. That being said, detect…

Any idea how much that homemade one weighs? 300g for the commercial one is more than half a pound, similar to the one I linked but a different shape.

Re: UA 1093

#102

Post by johnldean0 »

dlcarrier wrote: post #98
johnldean0 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WindBorne cofounder CEO (John Dean) here -- Thanks, indeed I think that a strike to the cockpit glass, in the corner where there is more stress concentration, is one of the worst places to hit for human safety. And indeed the system was designed to be safe in the event of a collision. But still, in light of this I think we can do better. I think it's possible to operate the way we do and have a the mass distributed s…

Please put pressure on the FAA to do better too. NOTAMS, as they currently are, are pretty useless, and allowing unmanned vessels to output ADS-B could be extremely beneficial.

Yea, the FAA does a lot and I think overall they do a great job, but I wish there was better systems for communications here. I think ultimately companies like WindBorne just have to go above and beyond what is required if they want to operate at scale safely in this space. And no one else operates balloons at the scale that we do, and safety has to be built into the design and operations regardless of how the official systems work.

Re: UA 1093

#103

Post by ggreer »

trenchpilgrim wrote: post #99
bdangubic wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes I did :)

The FAA limits the mass of a weather balloon for this reason. I also would not be surprised to see new regulation on the distribution of that mass as a result of this incident.

There are some limitations on such balloons already. For example, if the payload is 4-6lbs, stricter rules apply if the weight/size ratio is greater than three ounces per square inch (measured by the smallest surface on the payload).[1]

Also for larger balloons, any trailing antenna must break if subjected to an impact force of 50lbs, or the antenna must have colored streamers every 50ft.

The ideal measurement would be some sort of crash testing. eg: The payload is accelerated at some standard velocity towards some standard target that represents the weakest part of an airplane (either cockpit glass or leading edge of a wing) and must not damage the target beyond some threshold. But that seems like it would be expensive, since every change in payload would require re-testing. Limits on sectional density seem like a good compromise.

1. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F...

Re: UA 1093

#104

Post by baggy_trough »

alistairSH wrote: post #48
baggy_trough wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It needs to be much stronger than the ability to pass new regulations, but it's much weaker instead.

Is that really true? An agency can remove a regulation it created. Congress (via the linked law) can also remove a regulation. Congress can also create regulations via legislation (though they typically don't go to that level of detail). And we have to remember, at one point, every regulation that exists was created to solve a problem / prevent a harm. The cost of removing that regulation prematurely is reintroducing…

> And we have to remember, at one point, every regulation that exists was created to solve a problem / prevent a harm.

It would be comforting to believe so, but that requires ignoring every aspect of human nature.

Re: UA 1093

#105

Post by travisgriggs »

johnldean0 wrote: post #79
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.

WindBorne cofounder CEO (John Dean) here -- Thanks, indeed I think that a strike to the cockpit glass, in the corner where there is more stress concentration, is one of the worst places to hit for human safety. And indeed the system was designed to be safe in the event of a collision. But still, in light of this I think we can do better. I think it's possible to operate the way we do and have a the mass distributed s…

Hats off to you and your company. I wish more companies could put up a notice like you did, much less show up as a CEO on frickin' HN and be willing to take responsibility as well as desire to do better. I honestly am a little confused how a person like you exists. The FAA should put someone like you in charge of Boeing.

Re: UA 1093

#106

Post by baggy_trough »

vkou wrote: post #76
baggy_trough wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is we don't have a garbage collection method to get rid of counterproductive or even insane regulations, so they build up into a choking plaque over time.

We do, it's called the legislature. Half the legislature campaigns on not doing anything if they get elected, though, and when they get elected, you get... Well, you get a lot of different things, most of them awful.

I'm interested in a system that would actually collect the garbage rather than just being theoretically capable of it but in practice not doing it.

Re: UA 1093

#107

Post by vkou »

baggy_trough wrote: post #106
vkou wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do, it's called the legislature. Half the legislature campaigns on not doing anything if they get elected, though, and when they get elected, you get... Well, you get a lot of different things, most of them awful.

I'm interested in a system that would actually collect the garbage rather than just being theoretically capable of it but in practice not doing it.

It would probably work about as well as a system where all contracts and debts get voided every 7 years.

It's building on quicksand, but it's certainly not unprecedented.

Re: UA 1093

#108

Post by [deleted] »

ggreer wrote: post #88
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prohibited? Why? Will air travel become safer because we don't know where they are?

The FCC requires that airborne transmitters identify themselves by broadcasting the an FAA designator such as the aircraft registration number.[1] The FAA has no identification or registration process for small weather balloons. So this effectively prohibits them from broadcasting. It's possible to add a radar reflector, but they add significant weight and bulk to the balloon's payload. I think reflectors are only re…

[deleted]

Re: UA 1093

#109

Post by [deleted] »

ggreer wrote: post #88
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prohibited? Why? Will air travel become safer because we don't know where they are?

The FCC requires that airborne transmitters identify themselves by broadcasting the an FAA designator such as the aircraft registration number.[1] The FAA has no identification or registration process for small weather balloons. So this effectively prohibits them from broadcasting. It's possible to add a radar reflector, but they add significant weight and bulk to the balloon's payload. I think reflectors are only re…

[deleted]

Re: UA 1093

#110

Post by electroly »

ggreer wrote: post #88
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prohibited? Why? Will air travel become safer because we don't know where they are?

The FCC requires that airborne transmitters identify themselves by broadcasting the an FAA designator such as the aircraft registration number.[1] The FAA has no identification or registration process for small weather balloons. So this effectively prohibits them from broadcasting. It's possible to add a radar reflector, but they add significant weight and bulk to the balloon's payload. I think reflectors are only re…

I'm confused about where the prohibition is. N991SS is an example of an FAA aircraft registration number for a balloon; I looked it up myself on the FAA N-number inquiry site to confirm. Your link does not talk about balloons at all. Where does the FAA prohibit weather balloons here? It sounds like it's just physically not possible to carry a transponder or reflector on a small weather balloon? But that's different than what the earlier posts were suggesting. It seems like it's physics preventing ADS-B on small balloons, not the FAA. If you did manage to get ADS-B on your balloon somehow, could you not register the balloon like the owners of N991SS did?
Post reply on HN