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

91–100 of 117 posts

Re: UA 1093

#91

Post by Someone1234 »

ggreer wrote: post #87
Someone1234 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An ADSB transponder, along with supporting electronics and battery will add to the weight of the aircraft. It makes it safer in one way, and less safe is another. This isn't quite the "slam dunk" you seem to believe.

Weather balloons already have restrictions on weight to minimize the consequences of collisions. The issue is that even if you can add a transmitter and meet the weight requirements, it's currently not possible to legally broadcast ADS-B data from a weather balloon.

They would need to increase the weight requirements if they're to add ADSB. Current ADSB transponders weigh as much as the entire weather balloon's package. Then add on the pounds of weight for batteries.

Re: UA 1093

#92

Post by tyre »

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…

Pretty great, public response from you to publish this and be in the comments here. Kudos. I hope more CEOs take your lead.

Re: UA 1093

#93

Post by cloverich »

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.

Related, i dont know what the technical term for this is, but was thinking about how because of speed, being in two places at once (collision) the equation depends greatly on speed. Simplistically, if planes traveled at the speed of light then an object on ANY point of their trajectory would collide.

Much more complex than simply amount of space times size of objects. Knowing theres a whole science / engineering behind this, Im just so curious about the people and practices that go into this part of travel especially air and space travel.

Re: UA 1093

#94

Post by ggreer »

Someone1234 wrote: post #91
ggreer wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weather balloons already have restrictions on weight to minimize the consequences of collisions. The issue is that even if you can add a transmitter and meet the weight requirements, it's currently not possible to legally broadcast ADS-B data from a weather balloon.

They would need to increase the weight requirements if they're to add ADSB. Current ADSB transponders weigh as much as the entire weather balloon's package. Then add on the pounds of weight for batteries.

The uAvionix ping200X weighs 50 grams according to its datasheet.[1] With a 1.5W continuous power draw, a 60 gram lithium battery would power it for 8 hours, for a total of 110 grams. WindBorne balloons weigh 1.1kg at launch (including ballast), and the FAA limit for such balloons is 2kg.

1. https://uavionix.com/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2025/07/...

Re: UA 1093

#95

Post by dlcarrier »

Someone1234 wrote: post #81
dlcarrier wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

An ADSB transponder, along with supporting electronics and battery will add to the weight of the aircraft. It makes it safer in one way, and less safe is another. This isn't quite the "slam dunk" you seem to believe.

The balloons likely already have batteries and GPS receivers. An extra radio and antenna would add a few grams of weight and tens of mW of power consumption. That could be well under one percent more weight.

It's much, much lighter than a radar reflector, which aircraft weather radar displays aren't even designed to display.

Re: UA 1093

#96

Post by kawfey »

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-...

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, detection isn't everything; primary radar cannot make accurate altitude measurements, only bearing and range. While that's enough to route traffic around, it could be also mistaken for a false return.

Re: UA 1093

#97

Post by dlcarrier »

MPSimmons wrote: post #86
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What happens to the payload mass when you add the transponder?

It could easily be less than a percent of added weight, considering that there's probably already batteries and a GPS receiver on the balloon.

Re: UA 1093

#98

Post by dlcarrier »

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…

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.

Re: UA 1093

#99

Post by trenchpilgrim »

bdangubic wrote: post #80
MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

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.

Re: UA 1093

#100

Post by dlcarrier »

artursapek wrote: post #17
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.

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

This event was unsafe, despite being wholly within the regulations, but in the comments of this post, the CEO of the company has made a promise to do better: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45656044#45659295

Government regulators have failed, but at least the company is making an effort to prevent this from happening again.

Post reply on HN