Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   No Subject Given

   

   Chomper, Oct 6th, 2004 @ 12:05pm

   
   

   hmmm...victim of outsourcing?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   3 foot drop...

   

   Dave Moore, Oct 6th, 2004 @ 1:53pm

   
   

   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 | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Re: 3 foot drop...

   

   Anonymous Coward, Oct 6th, 2004 @ 2:54pm

   
   

   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 | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Satellites are fragile...

   

   Richard Jones, Oct 6th, 2004 @ 3:18pm

   
   

   "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 | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   More than 3 feet

   

   Ian Paul Freely, Oct 6th, 2004 @ 5:41pm

   
   

   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 | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   OOOP's

   

   ken walker, Oct 6th, 2004 @ 7:52pm

   
   

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

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Satellite Doom with a View

   

   F.Baube, Oct 7th, 2004 @ 10:41am

   
   

   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 | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment