“A massive booster from the Chinese Long March 5B rocket, launched on July 24, 2022, is expected to re-enter Earth’s atmosphere today, with some of its pieces surviving the descent and hitting the surface. The rocket delivered the Wentian experiment module to China’s Tiangong Space Station.

Spacetrack Directory Name: CZ-5B R/B (ID 53240) The predicted reentry window is 19:24 UTC on July 30, 2022 ± 7 hours

While this debris has considerable size and weight (56 m / 183 feet, weighing 22.5 metric tons), the chance of some of its leftovers hitting anyone on the ground is very slim.

However, since there might be 5 to 9 tons of debris hitting the surface and because previous boosters from this type of rocket hit populated areas, a major concern is developing worldwide.”

https://watchers.news/2022/07/29/pieces-of-chinese-long-march-5b-rocket-expected-to-hit-earths-surface-this-weekend/

https://www.space.com/chinese-rocket-space-debris-fall-when-where

The current best guess for reentry location.

Interesting that if it is only a few minutes late, it may come down in one of the most densely populated areas on the planet.

Kingy said:

“A massive booster from the Chinese Long March 5B rocket, launched on July 24, 2022, is expected to re-enter Earth’s atmosphere today, with some of its pieces surviving the descent and hitting the surface. The rocket delivered the Wentian experiment module to China’s Tiangong Space Station.

Spacetrack Directory Name: CZ-5B R/B (ID 53240) The predicted reentry window is 19:24 UTC on July 30, 2022 ± 7 hours

While this debris has considerable size and weight (56 m / 183 feet, weighing 22.5 metric tons), the chance of some of its leftovers hitting anyone on the ground is very slim.

However, since there might be 5 to 9 tons of debris hitting the surface and because previous boosters from this type of rocket hit populated areas, a major concern is developing worldwide.”

https://watchers.news/2022/07/29/pieces-of-chinese-long-march-5b-rocket-expected-to-hit-earths-surface-this-weekend/

https://www.space.com/chinese-rocket-space-debris-fall-when-where

The current best guess for reentry location.

Interesting that if it is only a few minutes late, it may come down in one of the most densely populated areas on the planet.

…and wherever it lands, China will quickly produce an ‘authentic’ map with a line of dashes on it to back its claim that the area has ‘always and traditionally’ belonged to China.

Kingy said:

“A massive booster from the Chinese Long March 5B rocket, launched on July 24, 2022, is expected to re-enter Earth’s atmosphere today, with some of its pieces surviving the descent and hitting the surface. The rocket delivered the Wentian experiment module to China’s Tiangong Space Station.

Spacetrack Directory Name: CZ-5B R/B (ID 53240) The predicted reentry window is 19:24 UTC on July 30, 2022 ± 7 hours

While this debris has considerable size and weight (56 m / 183 feet, weighing 22.5 metric tons), the chance of some of its leftovers hitting anyone on the ground is very slim.

However, since there might be 5 to 9 tons of debris hitting the surface and because previous boosters from this type of rocket hit populated areas, a major concern is developing worldwide.”

https://watchers.news/2022/07/29/pieces-of-chinese-long-march-5b-rocket-expected-to-hit-earths-surface-this-weekend/

https://www.space.com/chinese-rocket-space-debris-fall-when-where

The current best guess for reentry location.

Interesting that if it is only a few minutes late, it may come down in one of the most densely populated areas on the planet.

You mean it is a homing rocket?

;)

Current best guess for reentry time is 9.5 hours from this post, give or take 5 hours. This means that the last pass over Australia in that time window will be over possibly the least populated strip of land in the world(barring the poles)

It’s down to a 2 hour window now.

Well
…

Any time now, supposedly

dv said:

Well
…

Any time now, supposedly

I heard a bang a couple of minutes ago if that is any help?

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Well
…

Any time now, supposedly

I heard a bang a couple of minutes ago if that is any help?

I suppose it depends where you are.

Altitude is now 120 km so it should be down within the next half an hour which means it is either going to be Indian or Pacific according to Spacex. The only significant piece of land in the path is Indonesia and Philippines.

https://twitter.com/nazriacai/status/1553424586624335872?s=20&t=20HLKSGIzpEluW18thFiTw

Reentry occurred near Kuching in Sarawak, Malaysia.

dv said:

https://twitter.com/nazriacai/status/1553424586624335872?s=20&t=20HLKSGIzpEluW18thFiTw

Reentry occurred near Kuching in Sarawak, Malaysia.

Ah well, I knew it didn’t hit me because I’m still here.

buffy said:

dv said:

https://twitter.com/nazriacai/status/1553424586624335872?s=20&t=20HLKSGIzpEluW18thFiTw

Reentry occurred near Kuching in Sarawak, Malaysia.

Ah well, I knew it didn’t hit me because I’m still here.

Maybe you’ve returned as some sort of Jedi Force ghost haunting the forum?

https://www.space.com/chinese-long-march-5b-rocket-space-debris-crash

Bit of a confusing piece unless the Philippines is in the Indian Ocean now

dv said:

https://www.space.com/chinese-long-march-5b-rocket-space-debris-crash

Bit of a confusing piece unless the Philippines is in the Indian Ocean now

Actually maybe not. Time of reentry will be judged by US Space Command by the time when altitude crosses 50 miles, so it’s quite possible it reentered in the Indian Ocean but pieces landed in the Philippines

dv said:

https://www.space.com/chinese-long-march-5b-rocket-space-debris-crash

Bit of a confusing piece unless the Philippines is in the Indian Ocean now

An earlier report said the crash site was near Sumatra.

Tamb said:

dv said:

https://www.space.com/chinese-long-march-5b-rocket-space-debris-crash

Bit of a confusing piece unless the Philippines is in the Indian Ocean now

An earlier report said the crash site was near Sumatra.

The reentry location and track puts it very close to the Spratly Islands. Sure would be a shame if it landed on one of their illegal military bases there.

Kingy said:

Tamb said:

dv said:

https://www.space.com/chinese-long-march-5b-rocket-space-debris-crash

Bit of a confusing piece unless the Philippines is in the Indian Ocean now

An earlier report said the crash site was near Sumatra.

The reentry location and track puts it very close to the Spratly Islands. Sure would be a shame if it landed on one of their illegal military bases there.

you mean they’d have succeeded in aiming and catching the return delivery

What really should have happened is, there should have been some fuel left on board for this to be a controlled reentry,” Darren McKnight, a senior technical fellow at the California-based tracking company LeoLabs, said Thursday (July 28) during a Long March 5B reentry discussion that The Aerospace Corporation livestreamed on Twitter. “That would be the responsible thing to do.”

NASA Administrator Bill Nelson voiced similar sentiments, calling out China in a statement issued today(opens in new tab) shortly after the reentry.

“The People’s Republic of China (PRC) did not share specific trajectory information as their Long March 5B rocket fell back to Earth,” Nelson said. 

“All spacefaring nations should follow established best practices, and do their part to share this type of information in advance to allow reliable predictions of potential debris impact risk, especially for heavy-lift vehicles, like the Long March 5B, which carry a significant risk of loss of life and property,” he added. “Doing so is critical to the responsible use of space and to ensure the safety of people here on Earth.”

dv said:

What really should have happened is, there should have been some fuel left on board for this to be a controlled reentry,” Darren McKnight, a senior technical fellow at the California-based tracking company LeoLabs, said Thursday (July 28) during a Long March 5B reentry discussion that The Aerospace Corporation livestreamed on Twitter. “That would be the responsible thing to do.”

NASA Administrator Bill Nelson voiced similar sentiments, calling out China in a statement issued today(opens in new tab) shortly after the reentry.

“The People’s Republic of China (PRC) did not share specific trajectory information as their Long March 5B rocket fell back to Earth,” Nelson said. 

“All spacefaring nations should follow established best practices, and do their part to share this type of information in advance to allow reliable predictions of potential debris impact risk, especially for heavy-lift vehicles, like the Long March 5B, which carry a significant risk of loss of life and property,” he added. “Doing so is critical to the responsible use of space and to ensure the safety of people here on Earth.”

just wait until the New Space Race really gets under way and we’ll see how responsible it gets

https://twitter.com/marufins/status/1554112442556612609?s=20&t=OBKsdb_NjUjOpVe1MM6SNQ

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1180559

Pieces of the rocket have been found in Borneo and offshore Philippines.

dv said:

https://twitter.com/marufins/status/1554112442556612609?s=20&t=OBKsdb_NjUjOpVe1MM6SNQ

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1180559

Pieces of the rocket have been found in Borneo and offshore Philippines.

Would have had to be a decent search to find it offshore.

sibeen said:

dv said:

https://twitter.com/marufins/status/1554112442556612609?s=20&t=OBKsdb_NjUjOpVe1MM6SNQ

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1180559

Pieces of the rocket have been found in Borneo and offshore Philippines.

Would have had to be a decent search to find it offshore.

From the sounds they weren’t even looking for it …

Gosh. Big lumps of debris. Lucky nobody was hurt.

Michael V said:

Gosh. Big lumps of debris. Lucky nobody was hurt.

how much more interesting might it have been though, how many more views, how many more clicks, how much more effective advertisements might have been

someone may even put up a survey

how many deaths by falling space junk per year would you tolerate?

1-10
10-100

transition said:

Michael V said:

Gosh. Big lumps of debris. Lucky nobody was hurt.

how much more interesting might it have been though, how many more views, how many more clicks, how much more effective advertisements might have been

someone may even put up a survey

how many deaths by falling space junk per year would you tolerate?

1-10
10-100

How many would I tolerate?

I think they will happen whether I tolerate them or not.

How many deaths/year from lightning strikes would you tolerate?

The Rev Dodgson said:

How many deaths/year from lightning strikes would you tolerate?

There’s a difference. No-one can control lightning, but space agencies are able, by allowing a small reserve of thruster/directional fuel and good science, to control the de-orbiting of large bits of equipment so as to minimise the risk to inhabited places.

It appears that the Chinese space agency made no such efforts, and just didn’t give a damn.

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

How many deaths/year from lightning strikes would you tolerate?

There’s a difference. No-one can control lightning, but space agencies are able, by allowing a small reserve of thruster/directional fuel and good science, to control the de-orbiting of large bits of equipment so as to minimise the risk to inhabited places.

It appears that the Chinese space agency made no such efforts, and just didn’t give a damn.

But there are things that could be done to reduce deaths from lightning.

Just like road deaths or any accidental deaths could be greatly reduced.

The risk of death from impact of space junk really is very tiny in the scheme of things.

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

How many deaths/year from lightning strikes would you tolerate?

There’s a difference. No-one can control lightning, but space agencies are able, by allowing a small reserve of thruster/directional fuel and good science, to control the de-orbiting of large bits of equipment so as to minimise the risk to inhabited places.

It appears that the Chinese space agency made no such efforts, and just didn’t give a damn.

I’m surprised it didn’t fall on Taipei.

Tamb said:

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

How many deaths/year from lightning strikes would you tolerate?

There’s a difference. No-one can control lightning, but space agencies are able, by allowing a small reserve of thruster/directional fuel and good science, to control the de-orbiting of large bits of equipment so as to minimise the risk to inhabited places.

It appears that the Chinese space agency made no such efforts, and just didn’t give a damn.

I’m surprised it didn’t fall on Taipei.

I’m disappointed that it didn’t fall on the Chinese space agency.

captain_spalding said:

Tamb said:

captain_spalding said:

There’s a difference. No-one can control lightning, but space agencies are able, by allowing a small reserve of thruster/directional fuel and good science, to control the de-orbiting of large bits of equipment so as to minimise the risk to inhabited places.

It appears that the Chinese space agency made no such efforts, and just didn’t give a damn.

I’m surprised it didn’t fall on Taipei.

I’m disappointed that it didn’t fall on the Chinese space agency.

Would it have not been better to have fallen on Xi’s house,, or for that matter, Poo-tin’s?

sibeen said:

dv said:

https://twitter.com/marufins/status/1554112442556612609?s=20&t=OBKsdb_NjUjOpVe1MM6SNQ

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1180559

Pieces of the rocket have been found in Borneo and offshore Philippines.

Would have had to be a decent search to find it offshore.

and yet we can’t find MH370???

Boris said:

sibeen said:

dv said:

https://twitter.com/marufins/status/1554112442556612609?s=20&t=OBKsdb_NjUjOpVe1MM6SNQ

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1180559

Pieces of the rocket have been found in Borneo and offshore Philippines.

Would have had to be a decent search to find it offshore.

and yet we can’t find MH370???

Still can’t believe that after all the review, they still didn’t decide planes need transponders that can’t be switched off

dv said:

Boris said:

sibeen said:

Would have had to be a decent search to find it offshore.

and yet we can’t find MH370???

Still can’t believe that after all the review, they still didn’t decide planes need transponders that can’t be switched off

MH freedom

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

How many deaths/year from lightning strikes would you tolerate?

There’s a difference. No-one can control lightning, but space agencies are able, by allowing a small reserve of thruster/directional fuel and good science, to control the de-orbiting of large bits of equipment so as to minimise the risk to inhabited places.

It appears that the Chinese space agency made no such efforts, and just didn’t give a damn.

But there are things that could be done to reduce deaths from lightning.

Just like road deaths or any accidental deaths could be greatly reduced.

The risk of death from impact of space junk really is very tiny in the scheme of things.

oh well at least the leading cause of death every 4 months is so difficult to prevent that half the world concedes defeat before even trying to

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

Michael V said:

Gosh. Big lumps of debris. Lucky nobody was hurt.

how much more interesting might it have been though, how many more views, how many more clicks, how much more effective advertisements might have been

someone may even put up a survey

how many deaths by falling space junk per year would you tolerate?

1-10
10-100

How many would I tolerate?

I think they will happen whether I tolerate them or not.

How many deaths/year from lightning strikes would you tolerate?

not sure what to make of it if you equate intrigue about space junk (entertainment that way) with electrocution by lightning

but whatever, have a little more thinkies and get back to me if you have to

dv said:

Still can’t believe that after all the review, they still didn’t decide planes need transponders that can’t be switched off

Transopnder codes (“squark codes”) are assigned to each aircraft for the duration of the flight. Setting the assigned code involves rotating in turn a set of knobs on the front of the transponder, so if the transponder is transmitting while the code is programmed, every code selected — even briefly — is transmitted. So it must be possible to disable transmitting the codes until the assigned code is programmed.

btm said:

dv said:

Still can’t believe that after all the review, they still didn’t decide planes need transponders that can’t be switched off

Transopnder codes (“squark codes”) are assigned to each aircraft for the duration of the flight. Setting the assigned code involves rotating in turn a set of knobs on the front of the transponder, so if the transponder is transmitting while the code is programmed, every code selected — even briefly — is transmitted. So it must be possible to disable transmitting the codes until the assigned code is programmed.

What normally happens is the transponder is turned-on just before leaving the gate, then off when arriving at the destination gate. Having them on, on the ground, would create a lot of (aircraft controller) radar clutter around the terminals so I think the radar display has software discrimination to filter most of the aircraft stationary at the gates out.

btm said:

dv said:

Still can’t believe that after all the review, they still didn’t decide planes need transponders that can’t be switched off

Transopnder codes (“squark codes”) are assigned to each aircraft for the duration of the flight. Setting the assigned code involves rotating in turn a set of knobs on the front of the transponder, so if the transponder is transmitting while the code is programmed, every code selected — even briefly — is transmitted. So it must be possible to disable transmitting the codes until the assigned code is programmed.

Why? Why not just add an additional gps transponder sending the same details all the time, located somewhere in the craft that can’t even be reached by flight crew or passengers?

dv said:

btm said:

dv said:

Still can’t believe that after all the review, they still didn’t decide planes need transponders that can’t be switched off

Transopnder codes (“squark codes”) are assigned to each aircraft for the duration of the flight. Setting the assigned code involves rotating in turn a set of knobs on the front of the transponder, so if the transponder is transmitting while the code is programmed, every code selected — even briefly — is transmitted. So it must be possible to disable transmitting the codes until the assigned code is programmed.

Why? Why not just add an additional gps transponder sending the same details all the time, located somewhere in the craft that can’t even be reached by flight crew or passengers?

Most modern airliners have some kind of continuous datalink back to the main base or the engine manufacturers so they can monitor what the engines are doing. In some cases they can send an instruction to park the plane at the end of the flight so some out of spec part can be replaced. Or more rarely to shut the engine down in-flight immediately.
All that gear was after my time, I’m not sure where the gear for that is located nor where the circuit breakers for them are.

https://interestingengineering.com/culture/a-mysterious-metallic-orb-that-might-hold-valuable-information-was-found-in-mexico

Hmmmm

Spiny Norman said:

dv said:

btm said:

Transopnder codes (“squark codes”) are assigned to each aircraft for the duration of the flight. Setting the assigned code involves rotating in turn a set of knobs on the front of the transponder, so if the transponder is transmitting while the code is programmed, every code selected — even briefly — is transmitted. So it must be possible to disable transmitting the codes until the assigned code is programmed.

Why? Why not just add an additional gps transponder sending the same details all the time, located somewhere in the craft that can’t even be reached by flight crew or passengers?

Most modern airliners have some kind of continuous datalink back to the main base or the engine manufacturers so they can monitor what the engines are doing. In some cases they can send an instruction to park the plane at the end of the flight so some out of spec part can be replaced. Or more rarely to shut the engine down in-flight immediately.
All that gear was after my time, I’m not sure where the gear for that is located nor where the circuit breakers for them are.

So obv q, why was that not useful in tracking the mh370?

dv said:

Spiny Norman said:

dv said:

Why? Why not just add an additional gps transponder sending the same details all the time, located somewhere in the craft that can’t even be reached by flight crew or passengers?

Most modern airliners have some kind of continuous datalink back to the main base or the engine manufacturers so they can monitor what the engines are doing. In some cases they can send an instruction to park the plane at the end of the flight so some out of spec part can be replaced. Or more rarely to shut the engine down in-flight immediately.
All that gear was after my time, I’m not sure where the gear for that is located nor where the circuit breakers for them are.

So obv q, why was that not useful in tracking the mh370?

A read for you:

https://theaviationist.com/2014/03/20/mh370-total-recap/,

dv said:

Spiny Norman said:

dv said:

Why? Why not just add an additional gps transponder sending the same details all the time, located somewhere in the craft that can’t even be reached by flight crew or passengers?

Most modern airliners have some kind of continuous datalink back to the main base or the engine manufacturers so they can monitor what the engines are doing. In some cases they can send an instruction to park the plane at the end of the flight so some out of spec part can be replaced. Or more rarely to shut the engine down in-flight immediately.
All that gear was after my time, I’m not sure where the gear for that is located nor where the circuit breakers for them are.

So obv q, why was that not useful in tracking the mh370?

Dunno.

Spiny Norman said:

dv said:

Spiny Norman said:

Most modern airliners have some kind of continuous datalink back to the main base or the engine manufacturers so they can monitor what the engines are doing. In some cases they can send an instruction to park the plane at the end of the flight so some out of spec part can be replaced. Or more rarely to shut the engine down in-flight immediately.
All that gear was after my time, I’m not sure where the gear for that is located nor where the circuit breakers for them are.

So obv q, why was that not useful in tracking the mh370?

Dunno.

Maybe the ratbag in the cockpit knew how to turn off more than just ADS-B.

Boris said:

https://interestingengineering.com/culture/a-mysterious-metallic-orb-that-might-hold-valuable-information-was-found-in-mexico

Hmmmm

Ding ding ding ding ding (etc).

captain_spalding said:

Spiny Norman said:

dv said:

So obv q, why was that not useful in tracking the mh370?

Dunno.

Maybe the ratbag in the cockpit knew how to turn off more than just ADS-B.

Well I guess that returns to my point about having a responder that no one onboard can disable…

dv said:

captain_spalding said:

Spiny Norman said:

Dunno.

Maybe the ratbag in the cockpit knew how to turn off more than just ADS-B.

Well I guess that returns to my point about having a responder that no one onboard can disable…

Fire on an flying aircraft is really bad news.

It is optimal to allow the pilots to turn off an (electric) ignition source before a fire starts than to be able to trace the location of the aircraft after it has crashed because of a fire which could have been prevented.

esselte said:

dv said:

captain_spalding said:

Maybe the ratbag in the cockpit knew how to turn off more than just ADS-B.

Well I guess that returns to my point about having a responder that no one onboard can disable…

Fire on an flying aircraft is really bad news.

It is optimal to allow the pilots to turn off an (electric) ignition source before a fire starts than to be able to trace the location of the aircraft after it has crashed because of a fire which could have been prevented.

I’m talking about a small fairly low power device like a satellite phone. Fuck, just use an off the shelf satellite phone. Set it to send a packet of data including its gps readout once a minute. They don’t spontaneously combust.

dv said:

esselte said:

dv said:

Well I guess that returns to my point about having a responder that no one onboard can disable…

Fire on an flying aircraft is really bad news.

It is optimal to allow the pilots to turn off an (electric) ignition source before a fire starts than to be able to trace the location of the aircraft after it has crashed because of a fire which could have been prevented.

I’m talking about a small fairly low power device like a satellite phone. Fuck, just use an off the shelf satellite phone. Set it to send a packet of data including its gps readout once a minute. They don’t spontaneously combust.

You would need either an external antenna or to try to contact the satellite by line of sight through one of the windows. Transmitting through a window means you are transmitting side-ways rather than up-wards. Satellite communications networks are optimized for a ground antenna looking upwards and a satellite looking downwards. They do not work well at large slant angles – the transmitter looking sideways and the satellite looking sideways.

“Airborne radio telephone communication via a satellite is usually abbreviated to the term SATCOM.

“Use of satellites for this purpose complements satellite-based navigation capability. Aircraft onboard equipment for SATCOM includes a satellite data unit, a high power amplifier and an antenna with a steerable beam. A typical aircraft SATCOM installation can support data link channels for ’packet data services’ as well as voice channels. SATCOM data link is currently used for only a small proportion of en route ATM communications in contrast to the much more extensive use as an alternative to VHF and HF for non-ATC purposes. The Asia-Pacific Region has been a particular focus for many of the early developments in the use of SATCOM for ATM data link. SATCOM functionality, which primarily depends upon geostationary satellites, is poor in polar regions, where HFDL (HF Data Link) provides equivalent service for some uses.”—- https://skybrary.aero/articles/satcom

esselte said:

dv said:

captain_spalding said:

Maybe the ratbag in the cockpit knew how to turn off more than just ADS-B.

Well I guess that returns to my point about having a responder that no one onboard can disable…

Fire on an flying aircraft is really bad news.

It wouldn’t be very difficult to have the electronics enclosed in a fire-proof container. Just have the external power & antenna attach to plugs on the side. Have the interior of the box flooded with nitrogen or the like. Have the internal battery be able to run for 20 hours, that’s more than pretty much any airliner can fly for with full tanks.

dv said:

esselte said:

dv said:

Well I guess that returns to my point about having a responder that no one onboard can disable…

Fire on an flying aircraft is really bad news.

It is optimal to allow the pilots to turn off an (electric) ignition source before a fire starts than to be able to trace the location of the aircraft after it has crashed because of a fire which could have been prevented.

I’m talking about a small fairly low power device like a satellite phone. Fuck, just use an off the shelf satellite phone. Set it to send a packet of data including its gps readout once a minute. They don’t spontaneously combust.

yeah but how many commercial flights have burned compared to how many disappeared over the sea

Spiny Norman said:

esselte said:

dv said:

Well I guess that returns to my point about having a responder that no one onboard can disable…

Fire on an flying aircraft is really bad news.

It wouldn’t be very difficult to have the electronics enclosed in a fire-proof container. Just have the external power & antenna attach to plugs on the side. Have the interior of the box flooded with nitrogen or the like. Have the internal battery be able to run for 20 hours, that’s more than pretty much any airliner can fly for with full tanks.

OK, are we going to encase every electrical system on the aircraft in such a container?

|The adage is Aviate-Navigate-Communicate, in that order. Communicating with ground is always the lowest priority task of a pilot. Why fire-proof an electrical device which is used for the lowest priority task and leave all the electronics utilized for high priority tasks exposed? MH370 is notable because it hasn’t been located. It is very unusual to not be able to find a downed aircraft. Transmitting location data via a satellite phone encased in a nitrogen flooded fire proof container is really low on the totem pole of things that could be done to make flying safer.

esselte said:

Spiny Norman said:

esselte said:

Fire on an flying aircraft is really bad news.

It wouldn’t be very difficult to have the electronics enclosed in a fire-proof container. Just have the external power & antenna attach to plugs on the side. Have the interior of the box flooded with nitrogen or the like. Have the internal battery be able to run for 20 hours, that’s more than pretty much any airliner can fly for with full tanks.

OK, are we going to encase every electrical system on the aircraft in such a container?

Obviously not. Just the ones that can’t be turned off by the crew for the rare examples of MH370, etc.

Spiny Norman said:

esselte said:

Spiny Norman said:

It wouldn’t be very difficult to have the electronics enclosed in a fire-proof container. Just have the external power & antenna attach to plugs on the side. Have the interior of the box flooded with nitrogen or the like. Have the internal battery be able to run for 20 hours, that’s more than pretty much any airliner can fly for with full tanks.

OK, are we going to encase every electrical system on the aircraft in such a container?

Obviously not. Just the ones that can’t be turned off by the crew for the rare examples of MH370, etc.

If it was common for pilots to disable these systems then fly their aircraft in the wrong direction for a few hours before crashing, and this made the aircraft unlocatable, then I might agree that such a thing would be worthwhile.

esselte said:

Spiny Norman said:

esselte said:

OK, are we going to encase every electrical system on the aircraft in such a container?

Obviously not. Just the ones that can’t be turned off by the crew for the rare examples of MH370, etc.

If it was common for pilots to disable these systems then fly their aircraft in the wrong direction for a few hours before crashing, and this made the aircraft unlocatable, then I might agree that such a thing would be worthwhile.

imagine if these things were in use, and then the occurrence of pilots disabling these systems then flying their aircraft in the wrong direction for a few hours before crashing became zero, there’d be no point in having them

SCIENCE said:

esselte said:

Spiny Norman said:

Obviously not. Just the ones that can’t be turned off by the crew for the rare examples of MH370, etc.

If it was common for pilots to disable these systems then fly their aircraft in the wrong direction for a few hours before crashing, and this made the aircraft unlocatable, then I might agree that such a thing would be worthwhile.

imagine if these things were in use, and then the occurrence of pilots disabling these systems then flying their aircraft in the wrong direction for a few hours before crashing became zero, there’d be no point in having them

Aircraft are not fitted with satellite data units, a high power amplifier and an antenna with a steerable beam which transmits location data to ground units because their is a concern that pilots will do this. This is not why these systems are installed. There are other reasons.

A pilots primary responsibility is to fly the aircraft and to make sure it is going to keep flying for as long as the pilot wants it to. To do so, the pilot needs to have access to the aircraft systems, access which includes the ability to turn something off if they need to.

If we are installing equipment on aircraft primarily because we are worried the pilots are going to do something crazy then we should build boxes around the yoke, throttle, fuel pump switches etc. Pilots are machinery operators. Their job is to operate the machinery.

esselte said:

SCIENCE said:

esselte said:

If it was common for pilots to disable these systems then fly their aircraft in the wrong direction for a few hours before crashing, and this made the aircraft unlocatable, then I might agree that such a thing would be worthwhile.

imagine if these things were in use, and then the occurrence of pilots disabling these systems then flying their aircraft in the wrong direction for a few hours before crashing became zero, there’d be no point in having them

Aircraft are not fitted with satellite data units, a high power amplifier and an antenna with a steerable beam which transmits location data to ground units because their is a concern that pilots will do this. This is not why these systems are installed. There are other reasons.

A pilots primary responsibility is to fly the aircraft and to make sure it is going to keep flying for as long as the pilot wants it to. To do so, the pilot needs to have access to the aircraft systems, access which includes the ability to turn something off if they need to.

If we are installing equipment on aircraft primarily because we are worried the pilots are going to do something crazy then we should build boxes around the yoke, throttle, fuel pump switches etc. Pilots are machinery operators. Their job is to operate the machinery.

…steerable beam which transmits to ground via satellite, I mean

esselte said:

Spiny Norman said:

esselte said:

OK, are we going to encase every electrical system on the aircraft in such a container?

Obviously not. Just the ones that can’t be turned off by the crew for the rare examples of MH370, etc.

If it was common for pilots to disable these systems then fly their aircraft in the wrong direction for a few hours before crashing, and this made the aircraft unlocatable, then I might agree that such a thing would be worthwhile.

Or on the odd occasion when some system fails and the crew is unable to save the aircraft. For example there’s been several cases where the pressurisation has failed for some reason and everyone has gone to sleep. The plane keeps on flying until it runs out of fuel. Often that’s in the middle of nowhere, so it’d be nice to have a completely independent system that transmitted the aircraft’s position all the time no matter what.

so in summary drone slash autonomous commercial flights are the safer way of the future and we should get rid of the error prone and logistically complicating not to mention expensive human factor

SCIENCE said:

so in summary drone slash autonomous commercial flights are the safer way of the future and we should get rid of the error prone and logistically complicating not to mention expensive human factor

Each passenger should have a hexdrone suctioncupped to the head and flown separately.

esselte said:

SCIENCE said:

esselte said:

If it was common for pilots to disable these systems then fly their aircraft in the wrong direction for a few hours before crashing, and this made the aircraft unlocatable, then I might agree that such a thing would be worthwhile.

imagine if these things were in use, and then the occurrence of pilots disabling these systems then flying their aircraft in the wrong direction for a few hours before crashing became zero, there’d be no point in having them

Aircraft are not fitted with satellite data units, a high power amplifier and an antenna with a steerable beam which transmits location data to ground units because their is a concern that pilots will do this. This is not why these systems are installed. There are other reasons.

A pilots primary responsibility is to fly the aircraft and to make sure it is going to keep flying for as long as the pilot wants it to. To do so, the pilot needs to have access to the aircraft systems, access which includes the ability to turn something off if they need to.

If we are installing equipment on aircraft primarily because we are worried the pilots are going to do something crazy then we should build boxes around the yoke, throttle, fuel pump switches etc. Pilots are machinery operators. Their job is to operate the machinery.

Why though? All of that seems a lot more effort and risk than just getting a basic off-the-shelf satphone in sticking it in the tail. It may not prevent deliberate crashes but it will certainly aid recovery.

The plane continued to ping a satellite, Inmarsat, well after everything was turned off.
Over.

dv said:

esselte said:

SCIENCE said:

imagine if these things were in use, and then the occurrence of pilots disabling these systems then flying their aircraft in the wrong direction for a few hours before crashing became zero, there’d be no point in having them

Aircraft are not fitted with satellite data units, a high power amplifier and an antenna with a steerable beam which transmits location data to ground units because their is a concern that pilots will do this. This is not why these systems are installed. There are other reasons.

A pilots primary responsibility is to fly the aircraft and to make sure it is going to keep flying for as long as the pilot wants it to. To do so, the pilot needs to have access to the aircraft systems, access which includes the ability to turn something off if they need to.

If we are installing equipment on aircraft primarily because we are worried the pilots are going to do something crazy then we should build boxes around the yoke, throttle, fuel pump switches etc. Pilots are machinery operators. Their job is to operate the machinery.

Why though? All of that seems a lot more effort and risk than just getting a basic off-the-shelf satphone in sticking it in the tail. It may not prevent deliberate crashes but it will certainly aid recovery.

Yep.

Peak Warming Man said:

The plane continued to ping a satellite, Inmarsat, well after everything was turned off.
Over.

Yes, but only once an hour.

I’m having a glass of

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

esselte said:

Fire on an flying aircraft is really bad news.

It is optimal to allow the pilots to turn off an (electric) ignition source before a fire starts than to be able to trace the location of the aircraft after it has crashed because of a fire which could have been prevented.

I’m talking about a small fairly low power device like a satellite phone. Fuck, just use an off the shelf satellite phone. Set it to send a packet of data including its gps readout once a minute. They don’t spontaneously combust.

yeah but how many commercial flights have burned compared to how many disappeared over the sea

IDK man why don’t you tell me how many planes have burned up because there was a satphone on board, let me know whether it was more or less than the 100 or so that have gone completely missing since WW2.

Tell me how many satellite phones have suddenly set themselves on fire in the history of the world. Thing is like 300 grams, got a 2Ah battery. A more innocuous damn thing you never did see.

Peak Warming Man said:

The plane continued to ping a satellite, Inmarsat, well after everything was turned off.
Over.

Without GPS information. All they could do was estimate the range from the signal strength. Over.

sibeen said:

I’m having a glass of

Goodo.

I myself am having a nice cup of tea, Darjeeling.

Spiny Norman said:

esselte said:

Spiny Norman said:

Obviously not. Just the ones that can’t be turned off by the crew for the rare examples of MH370, etc.

If it was common for pilots to disable these systems then fly their aircraft in the wrong direction for a few hours before crashing, and this made the aircraft unlocatable, then I might agree that such a thing would be worthwhile.

Or on the odd occasion when some system fails and the crew is unable to save the aircraft. For example there’s been several cases where the pressurisation has failed for some reason and everyone has gone to sleep. The plane keeps on flying until it runs out of fuel. Often that’s in the middle of nowhere, so it’d be nice to have a completely independent system that transmitted the aircraft’s position all the time no matter what.

I think, in the very near future, all RPT aircraft will be tracked all the time, with that information recorded and available for investigative purposes if required. It seems obvious this technology will exist very soon.

I also agree that it would be nice to have it now, to have already had it when MH370 disappeared. Not only would we know what happened, but we may have been able to recover bodies or at least give closure to friends and relatives of the deceased.

I’m replying to the question, why is there not a transponder on board these aircraft which can not be turned off by the passengers or crew, and which sends constant or near constant positional information to ground units?

There’s a few of reasons I can think of.

1. It’s probably quite expensive to fit a new system like this to an aircraft. It is not as simple as buying an off-the-shelf satellite phone and sticking it behind the jump seat. The satellite comm systems that are installed today in these aircraft are integrated systems comprising of something called a “data unit”, a high power amplifier, and an externally mounted (outside the metal body of the aircraft, but still encased in an aerodynamically shaped solid skin) steerable antenna.

2. Denying the crew access to one of the systems on board is antithetical to the concept of having a crew in the first place. They need to have sufficient access to the stuff on board the aircraft to do their jobs. This includes shutting down faulty systems that may endanger the aircraft. Their primary task is to “aviate”, and they can not do that to the best of their capability if you deny them the tools to do so.

3. In terms of the priorities that an airline company has with regards to safety operations, systems like this have extremely limited utility. Not including MH370, from 2001-2019 (from wikipedia) there are around 70 people missing because they were involved in a crash of an aircraft which has not been located. From fourteen separate incidents, or 15 if you include 370. An average of about 5 people per aircraft. A Bpeing 727 was stolen in 2003 and has not been recovered. This 727 and 370’s 777 are the only large jets that went missing in the same time period, the others being light aircraft, small regional airliners and military planes. The problem that is looking to be addressed here does not exist. Planes do not go missing and people do not die because the pilots had the ability to turn off their transponders. Aircraft with large numbers of passengers on board are not going missing.

4. Cost of ongoing service. How much would a satellite company charge an airline to use it’s satellites constantly? My understanding is that airlines operate very marginally, and it may be that the cost can not be justified.

((Whilst i’ve been typing a lot of people have posted in this thread. If any of that is addressed to me please know I’m not being rude but my Holiday Forum time for today has expired so I won’t be replying. Must go and do some of that “life” stuff.. ))

esselte said:

Spiny Norman said:

esselte said:

If it was common for pilots to disable these systems then fly their aircraft in the wrong direction for a few hours before crashing, and this made the aircraft unlocatable, then I might agree that such a thing would be worthwhile.

Or on the odd occasion when some system fails and the crew is unable to save the aircraft. For example there’s been several cases where the pressurisation has failed for some reason and everyone has gone to sleep. The plane keeps on flying until it runs out of fuel. Often that’s in the middle of nowhere, so it’d be nice to have a completely independent system that transmitted the aircraft’s position all the time no matter what.

I think, in the very near future, all RPT aircraft will be tracked all the time, with that information recorded and available for investigative purposes if required. It seems obvious this technology will exist very soon.

It exists right now. It’s called GPS and it’s been around for decades.

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

How many deaths/year from lightning strikes would you tolerate?

There’s a difference. No-one can control lightning, but space agencies are able, by allowing a small reserve of thruster/directional fuel and good science, to control the de-orbiting of large bits of equipment so as to minimise the risk to inhabited places.

It appears that the Chinese space agency made no such efforts, and just didn’t give a damn.

But there are things that could be done to reduce deaths from lightning.

Just like road deaths or any accidental deaths could be greatly reduced.

The risk of death from impact of space junk really is very tiny in the scheme of things.

Three dead and one critically hurt after lightning strike near White House

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/04/lightning-strike-white-house-four-injured

Spiny Norman said:

esselte said:

Spiny Norman said:

Or on the odd occasion when some system fails and the crew is unable to save the aircraft. For example there’s been several cases where the pressurisation has failed for some reason and everyone has gone to sleep. The plane keeps on flying until it runs out of fuel. Often that’s in the middle of nowhere, so it’d be nice to have a completely independent system that transmitted the aircraft’s position all the time no matter what.

I think, in the very near future, all RPT aircraft will be tracked all the time, with that information recorded and available for investigative purposes if required. It seems obvious this technology will exist very soon.

It exists right now. It’s called GPS and it’s been around for decades.

and the antennas are not steerable nor do they need to be. same with epirb.

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

There’s a difference. No-one can control lightning, but space agencies are able, by allowing a small reserve of thruster/directional fuel and good science, to control the de-orbiting of large bits of equipment so as to minimise the risk to inhabited places.

It appears that the Chinese space agency made no such efforts, and just didn’t give a damn.

But there are things that could be done to reduce deaths from lightning.

Just like road deaths or any accidental deaths could be greatly reduced.

The risk of death from impact of space junk really is very tiny in the scheme of things.

Three dead and one critically hurt after lightning strike near White House

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/04/lightning-strike-white-house-four-injured

That was an act of God on the Biden administration.

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

There’s a difference. No-one can control lightning, but space agencies are able, by allowing a small reserve of thruster/directional fuel and good science, to control the de-orbiting of large bits of equipment so as to minimise the risk to inhabited places.

It appears that the Chinese space agency made no such efforts, and just didn’t give a damn.

But there are things that could be done to reduce deaths from lightning.

Just like road deaths or any accidental deaths could be greatly reduced.

The risk of death from impact of space junk really is very tiny in the scheme of things.

Three dead and one critically hurt after lightning strike near White House

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/04/lightning-strike-white-house-four-injured

Say what you like about trump.

He has friends in high places.

Boris said:

Spiny Norman said:

esselte said:

I think, in the very near future, all RPT aircraft will be tracked all the time, with that information recorded and available for investigative purposes if required. It seems obvious this technology will exist very soon.

It exists right now. It’s called GPS and it’s been around for decades.

and the antennas are not steerable nor do they need to be. same with epirb.

Said I was leaving and I am, but dragged back in…

Can a GPS unit tell a person sitting in Headquarters in Sydney the location of an QF666 flying over the middle of the Pacific? How? The only way I can think of is if it could communicate with satellites in LEO, like a satellite phone. Aircraft flying today can also communicate with LEO satellites. They have a bunch of equipment, including a steerable antenna to allow them to do so. So I don’t agree that the technology I described exists today in the form of GPS.

esselte said:

Boris said:

Spiny Norman said:

It exists right now. It’s called GPS and it’s been around for decades.

and the antennas are not steerable nor do they need to be. same with epirb.

Said I was leaving and I am, but dragged back in…

Can a GPS unit tell a person sitting in Headquarters in Sydney the location of an QF666 flying over the middle of the Pacific? How? The only way I can think of is if it could communicate with satellites in LEO, like a satellite phone.

Yes, that’s how GPS works.

Spiny Norman said:

esselte said:

Boris said:

and the antennas are not steerable nor do they need to be. same with epirb.

Said I was leaving and I am, but dragged back in…

Can a GPS unit tell a person sitting in Headquarters in Sydney the location of an QF666 flying over the middle of the Pacific? How? The only way I can think of is if it could communicate with satellites in LEO, like a satellite phone.

Yes, that’s how GPS works.

most gps units don’t transmit. you’d need something like an epirb.

Boris said:

Spiny Norman said:

esselte said:

Said I was leaving and I am, but dragged back in…

Can a GPS unit tell a person sitting in Headquarters in Sydney the location of an QF666 flying over the middle of the Pacific? How? The only way I can think of is if it could communicate with satellites in LEO, like a satellite phone.

Yes, that’s how GPS works.

most gps units don’t transmit. you’d need something like an epirb.

i think gps trackers use the mobile network.

Boris said:

Boris said:

Spiny Norman said:

Yes, that’s how GPS works.

most gps units don’t transmit. you’d need something like an epirb.

i think gps trackers use the mobile network.

Yeah that’s how they send data. It’s pretty easy to do.

Spiny Norman said:

Boris said:

Boris said:

most gps units don’t transmit. you’d need something like an epirb.

i think gps trackers use the mobile network.

Yeah that’s how they send data. It’s pretty easy to do.

So a GPS on board a flight over the middle of the Pacific ocean is going to use the mobile phone network to send information to Sydney? I

esselte said:

Spiny Norman said:

Boris said:

i think gps trackers use the mobile network.

Yeah that’s how they send data. It’s pretty easy to do.

So a GPS on board a flight over the middle of the Pacific ocean is going to use the mobile phone network to send information to Sydney? I

No sorry, I got that wrong. They’d use the satphone network.

Boris said:

Spiny Norman said:

esselte said:

I think, in the very near future, all RPT aircraft will be tracked all the time, with that information recorded and available for investigative purposes if required. It seems obvious this technology will exist very soon.

It exists right now. It’s called GPS and it’s been around for decades.

and the antennas are not steerable nor do they need to be. same with epirb.

Also, epirbs work within ships, they work within trucks, without a need for an external antenna. I know this from experience. No steerable this or amplifier that, just basic off the shelf shit. Can’t imagine why you’d say it can’t work within a plane.

dv said:

Boris said:

Spiny Norman said:

It exists right now. It’s called GPS and it’s been around for decades.

and the antennas are not steerable nor do they need to be. same with epirb.

Also, epirbs work within ships, they work within trucks, without a need for an external antenna. I know this from experience. No steerable this or amplifier that, just basic off the shelf shit. Can’t imagine why you’d say it can’t work within a plane.

All airliners and pretty much every aeroplane already has an EPIRB.

Spiny Norman said:

dv said:

Boris said:

and the antennas are not steerable nor do they need to be. same with epirb.

Also, epirbs work within ships, they work within trucks, without a need for an external antenna. I know this from experience. No steerable this or amplifier that, just basic off the shelf shit. Can’t imagine why you’d say it can’t work within a plane.

All airliners and pretty much every aeroplane already has an EPIRB.

EPIRBs are one of the greatest inventions of the latter 20th century. You set one off, and you’re pretty much guaranteed that it’s going to get noticed.

dv said:

Boris said:

Spiny Norman said:

It exists right now. It’s called GPS and it’s been around for decades.

and the antennas are not steerable nor do they need to be. same with epirb.

Also, epirbs work within ships, they work within trucks, without a need for an external antenna. I know this from experience. No steerable this or amplifier that, just basic off the shelf shit. Can’t imagine why you’d say it can’t work within a plane.

Mine vehicles often have location (and other stuff) reporting devices. These communicate the data via satellite. I have not seen any special aerials on the vehicles.