A satellite belonging to multinational service provider Intelsat mysteriously broke up in geostationary orbit over the weekend.

A satellite belonging to multinational service provider Intelsat mysteriously broke up in geostationary orbit over the weekend.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    341·
    1 day ago

    Wow, Boeing keeps finding new and interesting ways to be incompetent. They seriously need their entire C-suite replaced with engineering types.

    • ToofpicEnglish
      2·
      4 hours ago

      Sorry, I just bought several Boeing stocks at the time they didn’t kill anyone yet, and now they have to do all that stuff to not let me out with a profit

    • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.socialEnglish
      8·
      16 hours ago

      The saddest thing about that is they mostly are.

      Business majors are the office grunts and middle managers of corporatism. Capital interests are more than aware that business degrees are basically adult daycares, and prefer engineering or law degrees for C-levels in industry.

      • Pacattack57@lemmy.worldEnglish
        52·
        6 hours ago

        I saw an interview with Jack Ma (I think) where he said his job isn’t to be the smartest at the job. His job is to find the smart people and make sure they work together. I think that may be what’s happening here. Leadership is incapable of holding the engineers accountable and making sure they follow all safety protocols. Whether that is incompetence or malice I’m sure we’ll never know for sure.

  • kandoh@reddthat.comEnglish
    9·
    20 hours ago

    Jack Welch is up there with the guy who invented leaded gasoline and the chemicals that put holes in the ozone.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13·
    1 day ago

    I’m honestly happy to see that it just had a fuel malfunction instead of the implication of an outside cause…

  • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
    1172·
    1 day ago

    That’s actually quite impressive because most satellites just don’t do anything when they die. Boeing’s vehicles die with flare, and depressing regularity

    • yogurt@lemm.eeEnglish
      20·
      1 day ago

      That’s only because they’re designed with passivation to vent tanks and disconnect batteries to remove sources of explosion when they start to die. If that fails the tanks eventually pop from thermal cycling or the solar panels overcharge the battery until it blows up like a Russian satellite did earlier this year.

  • Regrettable_incident@lemmy.worldEnglish
    441·
    1 day ago

    Great, more bits of dangerous junk in orbit. The fuckers should have to clear up their mess before it fucks up other satellites.

    • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.todayEnglish
      20·
      1 day ago

      This is actually a real problem more so in this case than most. There’s an awful lot of satellites in low Earth orbit, altitude of a few hundred to several hundred kilometers. Atmospheric drag still exists here a little bit, and thus space junk will reenter and burn up in years or decades.

      This satellite was in geostationary orbit, at an altitude of about 36,000 km. Debris up there can take hundreds of years to come down. Geostationary is a special altitude where the satellite orbits at exactly the same rate as the Earth spins. That means that a fixed dish on Earth will always point at the satellite without needing to move or track. So there’s just one narrow orbital ring around the equator for that. That ring is not a place we want space junk to be, because if it gets too hazardous for satellites in GEO that basically removes our capability as a species to use fixed satellite dishes for anything. And that problem won’t go away for centuries.

    • Kbobabob@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      1 day ago

      How did it break up? I wasn’t aware that Boeing was determined to be a fault in the build process.

      • Regrettable_incident@lemmy.worldEnglish
        9·
        1 day ago

        Yeah fair point. Boeing has a degraded reputation these days but at the mo we don’t know why it broke up. Probably never will. I’m kinda going on Occam’s razor here.

  • ChronosTriggerWarning@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6·
    1 day ago

    Wouldn’t it be a bit more concerning if it exploded into smaller, yet complete satellites…? Exploding “into pieces” seems downright SOP to me.

  • lunar17@lemmy.worldEnglish
    44·
    2 days ago

    This is slightly concerning. Satellites don’t tend to explode on their own, but it is a Boeing design with a history of leaky propulsion, so who knows?

    • postmateDumbass@lemmy.worldEnglish
      301·
      2 days ago

      Sure it was a Comm satellite for the world’s tensest area, which is about to go to bigger war.

      who would have ASAT capability at GEO?

      how could it be launched to GEO undetected?

      • Zron@lemmy.worldEnglish
        31·
        1 day ago

        If you’re a government, you can pretty much put anything in a rocket fairing and call it a reconnaissance satellite.

        The only warning that actually has to be given is that a rocket is being launched, so you don’t accidentally trigger WW3 by setting off launch detection satellites without warning. After it’s in space, no one can really tell what was in the fairing. Could be a spy satellite, could be navigation. Could just be a box with a bunch of little rockets in it, designed to slam into whatever you want at ridiculous speed.

        But it’s way more likely that this was just Boeing having a tiny leak in a propellant tank, or a bad thruster and as soon as the concentration of propellant and oxidizer got high enough, it triggered a detonation. They certainly have a history of not leak testing their shit: airplanes falling apart, space capsules with leaky thrusters, and now a blown up satellite point more towards incompetence than malice.

  • 0x0@programming.devEnglish
    1862·
    2 days ago

    Surprised Pikachu face…

    IS-33e was the second satellite to be launched as part of Boeing’s “next generation” EpicNG platform. The first, dubbed IS-29e, failed due to a propulsion system fuel leak.

    I see a pattern.

    • Billiam@lemmy.worldEnglish
      173·
      2 days ago

      Hmm, sounds like Boeing needs to fire more engineers.

      And increase C-level compensation, of course.

        • mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          403·
          2 days ago

          Just gonna throw this idea out there:

          What if they hired a bunch of engineers who graduated from sketchy, unaccredited colleges in foreign countries and paid them half as much much?

          • azuth@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            16·
            2 days ago

            Is this like when Americans blamed Pakistani coders for B737/MCAS debacle only to be proven they implemented Boeing’s (fatally flawed) specifications to the letter?

      • this_1_is_mine@lemmy.worldEnglish
        19·
        2 days ago

        I don’t know this smells of some pencil Pusher looking at an engineer going “can you bring the cost of that rubber o-ring down 13 cents”… “I know you were looking for a specific type of seal but I got this huge assortment pack right here from my local temu…”

      • Vanth@reddthat.comEnglish
        15·
        2 days ago

        Well, it is public knowledge that layoffs and furloughs are happening, so sadly, you’re not wrong.

        And they somehow enticed Kelly Ortberg out of retirement to take over as CEO. There’s the hella juicy c-suite compensation package you talked about. He was already riding golden after he maneuvered that Rockwell Collins sale/merger/whatever.

      • TechnologyChef@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        2 days ago

        Exactly why I wonder where our business school ethics go when it seems to me that value is only placed on what can be tied to everyone’s income and profit being the ‘sole’ provider for it, and any Engineer’s ethics being a nice thing for their own time. What would happen if we switch it up to Engineers being in charge who actually learn to make the product and the business side being the client of it rather than the other way around? Could the world be a better place? This doesn’t mean every engineer or either group as a monolith is good or bad. Just that maybe in economics we can see who may value externalities even in capitalism as Adam Smith seemed to promote over just profit.

    • piskertariot@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      1 day ago

      Selective quoting is basically lying.

      The first, dubbed IS-29e, failed due to a propulsion system fuel leak. Intelsat declared the satellite a total loss in April 2019, later attributing it to either a micrometeoroid strike or solar weather activity.

      With the context of the quote, I"m curious what the pattern you’ve identified is.

  • clutchtwopointzero@lemmy.worldEnglish
    37·
    2 days ago

    Boeing: outsources to an outsourcer who outsources to an outsourcer who outsources to an outsourcer who outsources to an outsourcer and so on and still has the shamelessness of appearing surprised at the shit quality and reliability they deliver