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

Intelsat 33e breaks up in geostationary orbit

spacenews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 147 posts

Re: Intelsat 33e breaks up in geostationary orbit

#121

Post by piva00 »

moralestapia wrote: post #104
Aachen wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to dismiss an argument, maybe do the math instead of saying "do the math" dismissively and inventing an arbitrary number without even saying across how much time that estimate is supposed to be (one in a billion, what, instantaneously? In the first hour?)

[flagged]

It's kind of expected here if you are going to call out someone's math to give the process you arrived to yours. Not so much a rule but expected courtesy :) "the solution is left as an exercise to the reader" is not very helpful to an argument.

Re: Intelsat 33e breaks up in geostationary orbit

#122

Post by DougN7 »

dylan604 wrote: post #9
SteveNuts wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should teach it in every MBA program in the country /s.

You joke, but it absolutely should. Boeing is a great example of "when all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail". When MBAs are left in charge with no guardrails, this is what can happen. That's a great thing to teach to new MBAs. Every field has this potential pitfall. When you hyperfocus, bad things can happen. Know when to say when.

But is the moral of the story that the guys that made the bad decisions got their bonuses and moved on, and aren’t affected by the aftermath? That’s what I fear the MBA’s will learn - don’t stick around.

Re: Intelsat 33e breaks up in geostationary orbit

#124

Post by visviva »

Reubachi wrote: post #108
bryanlarsen wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 0.3 degrees ahead in orbit. Which means the debris needs to speed up to collide. It's possible if the break-up was explosive, but most, if not all of the debris is more likely to stay at the same velocity or slow down.

How does one tell the dynamics of orbital objects/debris relative to forces acting on them? Is there a name for this type of field?

Astrodynamics

Re: Intelsat 33e breaks up in geostationary orbit

#125

Post by DrillShopper »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #83
xvector wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boeing should be forced to clean up the mess they made on their dime, or it's prison for the execs. We are far too light on execs causing irreparable harm to humanity.

Maybe a bit confused - paying for damages is a civil/contract matter. Jail is for crimes committed by a person. The parent comment explained some reasonable contractual mechanisms for civil remedy - insurance etc.

Things can be both - insurance fraud jumps to mind, for example. You have to make the insurance company whole (they sue you in civil court) and you have to stand trial for your alleged crime (you're arraigned in criminal court).

Re: Intelsat 33e breaks up in geostationary orbit

#126

Post by DrillShopper »

dylan604 wrote: post #44
milgrim wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The satellite here was using the same Boeing bus: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/new-video-of-intelsa... So something similar might have happened here.

Waiting for a leak of emails where engineers expressed concerns on the design/elements and management approved anyways.

Wow, these companies really are replicating NASA management

Re: Intelsat 33e breaks up in geostationary orbit

#127

Post by randmeerkat »

a1369209993 wrote: post #80
randmeerkat wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you have a 25 m^2 cross section in the direction of the explosion, at that distance you have a roughly 1 in 246 billion chance of any given bit of debris hitting you. Source?

$ units You have: 25m2 / 2tau(700km)^2 You want: /billion * 0.0040600751 / 246.30086

[flagged]

Re: Intelsat 33e breaks up in geostationary orbit

#128

Post by barryrandall »

stavros wrote: post #93

> “believe it is unlikely that the satellite will be recoverable.” Why do these announcements have to be so hedgy? The satellite is in twenty pieces, I'd think that with the probability of spontaneous reconstruction being so low, we're fairly safe to say "will not be recoverable".

Because it was posted on the internet, where new and exciting forms of pedantry are invented every day.

Re: Intelsat 33e breaks up in geostationary orbit

#129

Post by [deleted] »

deskr wrote: post #7

> ... satellite maker Boeing to address an anomaly that emerged earlier that day, but “believe it is unlikely that the satellite will be recoverable.” Yeah, the satellite disintegrates and they call it an "anomaly" and "unlikely that the satellite will be recoverable". This response is even funnier than "the front fell off" sketch. I feel like it's time to class Boeing as not only inept but a dangerously inept organi…

[deleted]

Re: Intelsat 33e breaks up in geostationary orbit

#130

Post by worstspotgain »

panzagl wrote: post #103
worstspotgain wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the only kind of weapon.

So you're saying an untraceable ASAT attack is more likely than a micrometeor impact?

Lots of real estate between "might prefer to deny it" and "untraceable." On HN at least, you should assume the best possible interpretation instead of putting words into mouths.

And yes, malfunction is the most likely cause, distantly followed by attack. Micrometeoroid isn't very likely IMO, considering Intelsat-29e failed similarly. Unless maybe if they painted a red target on it and the meteor god has a sense of humor.

Post reply on HN