6 ms·

A lot of flights seem to be diverting to avoid it... https://bsky.app/profile/flightradar24.com/post/3lfvhpgmqqc24 https://bsky.app/profile/flightradar24.com/p

A lot of flights seem to be diverting to avoid it... https://bsky.app/profile/flightradar24.com/post/3lfvhpgmqqc24 https://bsky.app/profile/flightradar24.com/post/3lfvhpgmqqc2...

ralfd 2y ago
Understandable, but an over reaction. Any debris not burning up is falling down after minutes.
- Kye 2y ago
  Would you bet hundreds of lives and millions of dollars on that?
  - ricardobeat 2y ago
    Yes. Space debris near orbiting speeds doesn't fall straight down, it's simple physics. If anything planes much further downrange (thousands of km) should be diverted, not immediately under the re-entry point.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      It wasn’t at orbital speeds yet.
      - ricardobeat 2y ago
        Over 21000km/h when it broke up, compared to ~28k for stuff orbiting in LEO. Should still go quite far.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        Yes, although drag is gonna be… substantially higher like this as well.
        InDubioProRubio 2y ago
        Does melting down not reshape metallic particles into ideal droplett parts ?
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        No. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/02/world/africa/kenya-space-debris-rocket.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/02/world/africa/kenya-space-...
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      The planes diverting were downrange. Also, I doubt they had much information to go off, and were essentially flying blind about where the debris were unless they had a direct line to NORAD. Do you have a better explanation why they are doing donuts over the pacific at the time of reentry, then were diverted? https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/ABX3133 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/ABX3133 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N121BZ/history/20250116/2000Z/KMDW/MBPV https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N121BZ/history/20250... https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/NKS172 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/NKS172
      - adolph 2y ago
        > donuts over the pacific Atlantic
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Doh!
        amcpu 2y ago
        Nuts!
      - ricardobeat 2y ago
        I don't have. Maybe they were indeed diverted because people got scared? Still seems pointless given the distances involved. Most reports are coming from social media / people watching flightradar24, and news media is just picking those up.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        There are several, all at the same time, all in the same area, where the debreis was seen. Why do you think it is pointless? If I am a pilot and the tower says "debris seen heading east of Bahamas", I probably wont want to keep flying towards that direction. Yeah, it is probably low risk, but I dont have a super computer or detailed map of the Starship debris field or entry zone.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
Kye 2y ago
Does SpaceX bother with NOTAM for its launches? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOTAM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOTAM It seems like the flights should have been planned around it so no diversion would be needed.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- enragedcacti 2y ago
  They do but its not clear to me whether the area where it broke up was actually included in the original NOTAM. The NOTMAR definitely does not according to the graphic shown on the NASASpaceflight stream. They are still live so I can't link a time code but something like -4:56 in this stream as of posting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nM3vGdanpw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nM3vGdanpw
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - kla-s 2y ago
    Since i couldn't find the time code in the video, i put a map together with both NOTAM and NOTMAR. map: https://github.com/kla-s/Space/blob/main/Map_NOTMAR_NOTAM_SpaceX_Starship_Test_Flight_7.png https://github.com/kla-s/Space/blob/main/Map_NOTMAR_NOTAM_Sp... description: https://github.com/kla-s/Space/tree/main https://github.com/kla-s/Space/tree/main Lets hope this is the year of Linux desktop and i didn't violate any licenses or made big errors ;)
- sbuttgereit 2y ago
  My understanding is that there are areas which are noted as being possible debris zones across the flight path, but that aircraft are not specifically told to avoid those areas unless there an actual event to which to respond. If my understanding is correct, it seems sensible at least in a hand-wavy way: you have a few places where things are more likely to come down either unplanned or planned (immediately around the launch site and at the planned deorbit area), but then you have a wide swath of the world where, in a relatively localized area, you -might- have something come down with some warning that it will (just because the time it takes to get from altitude to where aircraft are). You close the priority areas, but you don't close the less likely areas pro-actively, but only do so reactively, it seems you'd achieve a balance between aircraft safety and air service disruptions.

A lot of flights seem to be diverting to avoid it... https://bsky.app/profile/flightradar24.com/post/3lfvhpgmqqc24 https://bsky.app/profile/flightradar24.com/post/3lfvhpgmqqc2...

ralfd 2y ago

Understandable, but an over reaction. Any debris not burning up is falling down after minutes.

Kye 2y ago
Would you bet hundreds of lives and millions of dollars on that?
- ricardobeat 2y ago
  Yes. Space debris near orbiting speeds doesn't fall straight down, it's simple physics. If anything planes much further downrange (thousands of km) should be diverted, not immediately under the re-entry point.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    It wasn’t at orbital speeds yet.
    - ricardobeat 2y ago
      Over 21000km/h when it broke up, compared to ~28k for stuff orbiting in LEO. Should still go quite far.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        Yes, although drag is gonna be… substantially higher like this as well.
        InDubioProRubio 2y ago
        Does melting down not reshape metallic particles into ideal droplett parts ?
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        No. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/02/world/africa/kenya-space-debris-rocket.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/02/world/africa/kenya-space-...
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    The planes diverting were downrange. Also, I doubt they had much information to go off, and were essentially flying blind about where the debris were unless they had a direct line to NORAD. Do you have a better explanation why they are doing donuts over the pacific at the time of reentry, then were diverted? https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/ABX3133 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/ABX3133 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N121BZ/history/20250116/2000Z/KMDW/MBPV https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N121BZ/history/20250... https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/NKS172 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/NKS172
    - adolph 2y ago
      > donuts over the pacific Atlantic
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Doh!
        amcpu 2y ago
        Nuts!
    - ricardobeat 2y ago
      I don't have. Maybe they were indeed diverted because people got scared? Still seems pointless given the distances involved. Most reports are coming from social media / people watching flightradar24, and news media is just picking those up.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        There are several, all at the same time, all in the same area, where the debreis was seen. Why do you think it is pointless? If I am a pilot and the tower says "debris seen heading east of Bahamas", I probably wont want to keep flying towards that direction. Yeah, it is probably low risk, but I dont have a super computer or detailed map of the Starship debris field or entry zone.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

Kye 2y ago

Does SpaceX bother with NOTAM for its launches? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOTAM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOTAM It seems like the flights should have been planned around it so no diversion would be needed.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
enragedcacti 2y ago
They do but its not clear to me whether the area where it broke up was actually included in the original NOTAM. The NOTMAR definitely does not according to the graphic shown on the NASASpaceflight stream. They are still live so I can't link a time code but something like -4:56 in this stream as of posting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nM3vGdanpw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nM3vGdanpw
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- kla-s 2y ago
  Since i couldn't find the time code in the video, i put a map together with both NOTAM and NOTMAR. map: https://github.com/kla-s/Space/blob/main/Map_NOTMAR_NOTAM_SpaceX_Starship_Test_Flight_7.png https://github.com/kla-s/Space/blob/main/Map_NOTMAR_NOTAM_Sp... description: https://github.com/kla-s/Space/tree/main https://github.com/kla-s/Space/tree/main Lets hope this is the year of Linux desktop and i didn't violate any licenses or made big errors ;)
sbuttgereit 2y ago
My understanding is that there are areas which are noted as being possible debris zones across the flight path, but that aircraft are not specifically told to avoid those areas unless there an actual event to which to respond. If my understanding is correct, it seems sensible at least in a hand-wavy way: you have a few places where things are more likely to come down either unplanned or planned (immediately around the launch site and at the planned deorbit area), but then you have a wide swath of the world where, in a relatively localized area, you -might- have something come down with some warning that it will (just because the time it takes to get from altitude to where aircraft are). You close the priority areas, but you don't close the less likely areas pro-actively, but only do so reactively, it seems you'd achieve a balance between aircraft safety and air service disruptions.