How To Destroy $135 Million Almost Instantly

Reader Comments

(Flattened / Threaded)

Oct 6th, 2004 @ 12:05pm

• No Subject Given

  by Chomper

  hmmm...victim of outsourcing?

  (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Oct 6th, 2004 @ 1:53pm

• 3 foot drop...

  by Dave Moore

  Probably all satellites are set up this way. Reinforcing, and shock protection would add mass, which is extremely expensive when you're trying to lift the thing into orbit. Most likely, all satellites are basically built to deal with exactly the amount of stress that occurs at takeoff. Anything extra is just wasted weight, assuming you have competent handlers on the ground. Apparently not a good assumption in this case...

  (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Oct 6th, 2004 @ 2:54pm

• Re: 3 foot drop...

  by Anonymous Coward

  uhhh. satellite launches involve 6+Gs of force. its pretty extreme. I don't think 3 feet makes sense. of course if its impact was all on one corner, etc...? I still have a hard time believing it. probably they were just a little short of their revenue numbers for the month ;-)

  (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Oct 6th, 2004 @ 3:18pm

• Satellites are fragile...

  by Richard Jones

  "Still, who sets up a $200+ million satellite in a way that a simple 3 foot drop will cause $135 million worth of damages?"
  Uh, no-one if they follow procedures...

  Satellites are fragile. They have bracing and internal chassis that holds them together during relocation and launch (about 24 bolts, apparently), but their "skin" is usually a mixture of extremely expensive solar collectors, reflective material, antennae, and given that it's a weather satellite, high precision optics (the article mentioned that two such instruments were damaged), ... the list goes on. Satellites are also usually heavy - so letting them fall a meter gives a fair bit of momentum to bash in some of those expensive bits sticking out - thus damaging internal componentry as well.

  (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Oct 6th, 2004 @ 5:41pm

• More than 3 feet

  by Ian Paul Freely

  It fell off a platform 3 foot high - and fell on it's side. Looked to be maybe 12-16 foot tall. That means the top fell more than 3 feet -more like 15.

  (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Oct 6th, 2004 @ 7:52pm

• OOOP's

  by ken walker

  ARE ALL ENVOLVED AMERICAN NATIONALS??????????????

  (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Oct 7th, 2004 @ 10:41am

• Satellite Doom with a View

  by F.Baube

  Wow, to be a fly on the wall at THAT stunt.
  Maybe there's some securitycam tapes floating around, let's hope something appears. It'd be a perfect start to a new season of "America's Funniest Corporate Videos".
  

  (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Add Your Comment