UA 1093 • Hacker News Board

Re: UA 1093

#71

Post by Polizeiposaune » Tue, Oct 21, 2025, 5:12 PM UTC

blackcatsec wrote: post #9

celeritascelery wrote: post #5

In hindsight, the fact that it was probably a balloon and not space debris makes a lot of sense. Something falling from space would only spend a few seconds at most in the zone where airplanes cruise but a weather balloon would be there significantly longer. Makes the chance of collisions much higher.

I mean, it also makes sense considering space debris would have hit that plane with significantly more force than a busted window.

Really depends on how big the space debris was and whether it had slowed to terminal velocity (the speed where the force of gravity equals the force of drag).

I'd rather be in a plane hit by 1 gram piece of space debris than in one that hit a 1kg sandbag hanging from a balloon.

Re: UA 1093

#72

Post by toast0 » Tue, Oct 21, 2025, 5:21 PM UTC

yabones wrote: post #30

thorsson12 wrote: post #21

It is surprising that weather balloons don't have ADS-B out (or did this ballon have that and something about the system didn't work?). If it did work, ADS-B would have made this collision very avoidable.

Even a radar reflector would have helped a lot. ADS-B is off-limits for balloons, ultralights, hang-gliders, etc, and it seems like now that radio beacons can be manufactured very cheap & low power all those non-commercial aerial vehicles should be equipped.

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-...

Re: UA 1093

#73

Post by dlcarrier » Tue, Oct 21, 2025, 5:32 PM UTC

thedudeabides5 wrote: post #29

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.

isn't the worst case it goes into the engine and it explodes/burns?

Depressurizations are worse than losing an engine. It can incapacitate the flight crew in seconds.

Re: UA 1093

#74

Post by dlcarrier » Tue, Oct 21, 2025, 5:35 PM UTC

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.

A reminder to those who presume regulators make the right decisions, a cheap ADSB out transponder would have prevented this incident, but putting one on a weather balloon is prohibited by the FAA.

Re: UA 1093

#75

Post by AnimalMuppet » Tue, Oct 21, 2025, 5:43 PM UTC

dlcarrier wrote: post #74

blackcatsec wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A reminder to those who presume regulators make the right decisions, a cheap ADSB out transponder would have prevented this incident, but putting one on a weather balloon is prohibited by the FAA.

Prohibited? Why?

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

Re: UA 1093

#76

Post by vkou » Tue, Oct 21, 2025, 5:48 PM UTC

baggy_trough wrote: post #27

artursapek wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

Re: UA 1093

#77

Post by wat10000 » Tue, Oct 21, 2025, 5:50 PM UTC

toast0 wrote: post #72

yabones wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even a radar reflector would have helped a lot. ADS-B is off-limits for balloons, ultralights, hang-gliders, etc, and it seems like now that radio beacons can be manufactured very cheap & low power all those non-commercial aerial vehicles should be equipped.

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-...

Marine applications care a lot about durability and pretty much zero about weight, so I wouldn’t expect that to be representative of how light they can be. You could make a radar reflector from a bit of cardboard and aluminum foil.

Re: UA 1093

#78

Post by MaxfordAndSons » Tue, Oct 21, 2025, 6:00 PM UTC

trenchpilgrim wrote: post #39

bdangubic wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

without working one working engine - sure. with serious structural damage - perhaps not so much

Yes, with serious structural damage. It's part of certification process for the engine: https://youtu.be/iBqWS1hil18

I think GP meant structural damage to the airframe. That said, I think there are some modes of structural damage a modern plane can sustain and still fly, but to gp's point, probably not many.

Re: UA 1093

#79

Post by johnldean0 » Tue, Oct 21, 2025, 6:05 PM UTC

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 such that the only damage is ever cosmetic. We follow FAA 101 regulations on this but I want to have better internal impact modeling as well.

Re: UA 1093

#80

Post by bdangubic » Tue, Oct 21, 2025, 6:28 PM UTC

MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #78

trenchpilgrim wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, with serious structural damage. It's part of certification process for the engine: https://youtu.be/iBqWS1hil18

I think GP meant structural damage to the airframe. That said, I think there are some modes of structural damage a modern plane can sustain and still fly, but to gp's point, probably not many.

yes I did :)