Another Malaysia 777 Down

I'm always amazed how some events have a trickling of information, if any, to the public, while others we instantly know so much :)
 
Not the first airliner shot down and not the last. This will amount to nothing in the end other than busy work for the news outlets.

History has shown that you have to kill over 1000 people in an attack in order to start a war. An airliner full of people lost is just a tragedy, not a pivotal moment in history.

This just seems like a case of mistaken identity by some trigger happy noobs. The Russian proxy army... er, I mean "separatists", thought it was a military transport plane and fired away like drunken cowboys. Now their job is to spin the evidence in their possession to show the Ukrainians did it.

Other than selling advertising, this event will amount to nothing.
 
You sound disappointed? Events like this, I hope, don't lead to a full-out war; however, they may help sway political talks behind doors. Most of history is a lot of smaller events that form the tide with the occasional large sparks.
 
Some conspiracy efforts to paint as a false-flag operation from the Russian POV.

http://vladimirsuchan.blogspot.fi/2014/07/another-false-flag-lh-17-likely-downed.html?spref=fb

The only things that appears a bit strange is the routing of this days MAS17 compared to previous routings on that route. The plane was under positive control by Ukraine ATC at the time. I'm not saying I agree, or that this was any kind of false-flag op, but the Russians are spinning it that way, and might as well serve up the possibility.

Rather than a true false-flag, there could be some of what I can only call 'nudged inverse-serendipity' at work. So, the Ukrainians know that the Russians are itching to shoot something down, and ATC plays a 'what if?' kind of game, and routes a comm carrier right over the disputed region on this day. The Russians bite hard on the bait, and - oops, there it is.
 
Not the first airliner shot down and not the last. This will amount to nothing in the end other than busy work for the news outlets.

History has shown that you have to kill over 1000 people in an attack in order to start a war. An airliner full of people lost is just a tragedy, not a pivotal moment in history.

This just seems like a case of mistaken identity by some trigger happy noobs. The Russian proxy army... er, I mean "separatists", thought it was a military transport plane and fired away like drunken cowboys. Now their job is to spin the evidence in their possession to show the Ukrainians did it.

Other than selling advertising, this event will amount to nothing.

Yeah, I kinda figured it for a big assed "oops", there is also the AIDS angle which will make for some wild conspiracy theories.
 
Hmmmm...I used to fly one of those (DSP). Glad to know it still works.

Ron Wanttaja

I'd be interested to know what is involved in flying a satellite. Also reading that I came across HEO satellites, what is the purpose in the highly elliptical orbit? The only thing I could think of is it allows for a much closer apogee in the orbit for getting detailed images.
 
The Ukrainian government has no reason to shoot at planes, the rebels do -- and have.

Wrong. The Kiev government has plenty of reasons to shoot down an airplane if they can hope to blame Putin for it.

Or, they can shoot one down without a good reason, like the airliner they downed in 2001.
 
Last edited:
History has shown that you have to kill over 1000 people in an attack in order to start a war. An airliner full of people lost is just a tragedy, not a pivotal moment in history.

The First World War was started by the killing of two people.

My thoughts exactly.

Beat me to it--that was my first thought as well. Although wasn't it really just Ferdinand's assassination that set it all off?
 
Beat me to it--that was my first thought as well. Although wasn't it really just Ferdinand's assassination that set it all off?
Ferdinand's wife was killed in the attack as well.
 
I'd be interested to know what is involved in flying a satellite.

Sitting at a console, waiting for it break, usually. :)

DSP is in Geosynchronous orbit, and operates itself, for the most part. We did have to run occasional maintenance procedures (sensor switching, battery reconditioning etc.), perform manuevers to keep within our longitude box, and respond to anomalies.

I was a sensor specialist, so anytime anything was detected, I gave real-time assessment to the Mission Director, then ran detailed analysis of the raw data to pick out anything unusual. Looked at a number of plane crashes, for example.

Also reading that I came across HEO satellites, what is the purpose in the highly elliptical orbit? The only thing I could think of is it allows for a much closer apogee in the orbit for getting detailed images.

HEO has several advantages. For countries like Russia, which do not have spaceports close to the equator, it gives them an orbit where the satellite stays relatively stationary for ~18 hours of the day. It doesn't require a fuel-intensive "dogleg" to get to the GEO belt. This is sometimes called a "Molniya" orbit, after the series of Soviet commsats that used it.

Another advantage is the latitude of that near-stationary position. The satellite holds nine hours at a time at about 63 degrees latitude (with pretty-much fixed longitude), vs. the 0 degrees that geostationary demands. This shortens the communications links tremendously, for high-latitude countries like Russia, and you're operating at a much higher elevation angle. For satellites with more nefarious purposes, it gets them a MUCH better look at high latitude targets (coughMurmanskcough).

Thirdly, it can get you simultaneous access to the far side of the world while maintaining direct communications links to the US. If you park your satellite in Geo over the Indian Ocean, you need either a ground station in the Eastern Hemisphere or to arrange a space-to-space relay. With a satellite in HEO, dwelling at 63 degrees latitude, you can position the orbit to give you simultanous comm between your customer and your home base.

A less known advantage of HEO is the ability to set up a peek-a-boo orbit. You can set it up so it rises above the horizon of the bad guy's territory, stays above the horizon long enough to check out what's happening, then slinks down before they can complete their targeting. Great fun....

The perigee portion of a typical HEO isn't much use. It's usually going to be in the southern hemisphere, for one thing. It's also going to be travelling ~5,000+ MPH faster than a LEO satellite, so imagery is a problem (and while low, you're still quite a bit higher than the usual imagry satellites).

You're also going into and out of the Van Allen belts once or twice daily, and this can cause problems.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Wrong. The Kiev government has plenty of reasons to shoot down an airplane if they can hope to blame Putin for it.

You sound like you've a bit of an axe to grind. The guys in charge in Kiev aren't my favorite bunch, though I think I like them better than the Russians. What makes you think they're downing airliners? Truth will come out. If they saw the plume from orbit they can tell from whence it came.

Or, they can shoot one down without a good reason, like the airliner they downed in 2001.

You think the downing of the Sibir Airlines Tupolev was intentional? Why, because it came from Tel Aviv?
 
Another advantage of HEO is that you do not need to negotiate at whatever international bureaucrat carteil assigns GEO slots and you do not need to give them a hugely expensive bribe. That is why Sirius radio used an orbit similar to Molniya, called "Tundra" orbit. After the merger with XM they are going to use XM's GEO slots and thus won't launch into Tundra orbits anymore.

The only other HEO sat I know is Japanese GPS augmentation system "Michibiki", which hovers over Japanese urban canyons and retranslates GPS signals. Otherwise their cellphones can't get locations reliably.

Update: Apparently, SBIRS has a HEO component.
 
Last edited:
You think the downing of the Sibir Airlines Tupolev was intentional? Why, because it came from Tel Aviv?
What kind of "without good reason" was difficult for you to understand?
 
Not to be morbid, does this make commercial travel more dangerous this year than GA?
 
Not to be morbid, does this make commercial travel more dangerous this year than GA?

Interesting question, per seat mile, I doubt it, but that's a guess. Looking at the numbers would be interesting to see how many airliners would have to bite it to get down to GA stats. Couple of A-380s go down, that may make things more interesting.
 
Not to be morbid, does this make commercial travel more dangerous this year than GA?

I doubt it. I don't think Airline safety and GA safety are in the same sport, much less ballpark. This probably accounts for a month's worth of GA accidents.
 
I doubt it. I don't think Airline safety and GA safety are in the same sport, much less ballpark. This probably accounts for a month's worth of GA accidents.

Interesting to see, but I don't think so, it takes a lot of fatal accidents in bug smashers to get 250 people. If you look at the NTSB site it looks like less than 20% of GA accidents end in fatalities, and even then, not always everyone. Most GA fatal accidents are one, sometimes 2 people, rare is a GA plane full. Only every several years do you hear of a 421 with a whole family of 7 or something similar. So while the accident rate is higher, the fatality rate is lower, and the death count per accident is orders of magnitude lower.

OTOH, shooting down airliners is a good way to promote GA as safe and sensible travel.
 
And this successful downing will just fuel the fire of any terrorist group that has SAM's in their possession....:hairraise:......:redface:

That is exactly right!

But not only terrorists ANYBODY that wants to make a statement. Planes are "sitting ducks" landing and taking off and those devices are easy to get.
This can happen easily in the U.S.A as well.

Rest in peace all the souls on board!
 
There is not much you can do to prevent something like this from happening again either! Anywhere!!
 
That is exactly right!

But not only terrorists ANYBODY that wants to make a statement. Planes are "sitting ducks" landing and taking off and those devices are easy to get.
This can happen easily in the U.S.A as well.

Rest in peace all the souls on board!

Already has according to some, TWA 800....
 
Beat me to it--that was my first thought as well. Although wasn't it really just Ferdinand's assassination that set it all off?

Could be. I included the killing of his wife because if I had said one person, then someone probably would have come along and pointed out that it was two people.
 
OTOH, shooting down airliners is a good way to promote GA as safe and sensible travel.

We should compare apples to apples. I'm not so sure that flying GA aircraft in what appears to be a war zone would qualify as safe and sensible.
 
Not to be morbid, does this make commercial travel more dangerous this year than GA?

For kicks... in 2013 they had about 39 billion passenger kilometers (24 billion passenger miles). Assume it's similar this year (and that the airline continues to exist and has no more fatalities). That gives them:

437 fatalities / 24 billion passenger miles ==> 1.8 fatal per 100 million miles.

US road deaths for 2011 were 1.10 per 100 million miles.

So it's in the ballpark of driving on US roads, and I assume much less than GA, though I didn't find a good number in 10 seconds of Googling.
 
Last edited:
Here we go again. Ukrainians kill a bunch of people, and it's somehow Putin's fault. Jeezus. It's like saying that Rousevelt instigated Pearl Harbor, because he left Japanese no other choice with his oil blockade. In the end, however, Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and Ukrainians shot down Malaisian airliner, and whatever Putin and Rosevelt did, does nothing to remove the responsibility from the actual criminals.


Why are so quick to dismiss the theory of this being shot down by Russian separatists? I don't really care, but that is where all the fingers are being pointed.
 
Why are so quick to dismiss the theory of this being shot down by Russian separatists? I don't really care, but that is where all the fingers are being pointed.

I think his perspective is that they aren't so much Russian separatists at all but just a different faction of Ukrainians. This is essentially how the Russians have been framing this conflict -- an internal Ukrainian civil war. From that perspective, this incident is an unfortunate result of the Ukrainians fighting.

For most Westerners that seems ludicrous, especially given the evidence presented so far, but there's always two different ways to view a conflict.
 
That is exactly right!

But not only terrorists ANYBODY that wants to make a statement. Planes are "sitting ducks" landing and taking off and those devices are easy to get.
This can happen easily in the U.S.A as well.

Rest in peace all the souls on board!

Very few "terrorists" have access to the sort of weapons that can hit an airliner at cruising altitudes. They can be hit with less sophisticated weapons when landing and taking off though, and I imagine airports in less settled parts of the world have security to try and prevent that sort of thing.

I'm reminded that the Rwandan genocide was kicked off when the president's plane was shot down while descending to land.
 
For kicks... in 2013 they had about 39 billion passenger kilometers (24 billion passenger miles). Assume it's similar this year (and that the airline continues to exist and has no more fatalities). That gives them:

437 fatalities / 24 billion passenger miles ==> 1.8 fatal per 100 million miles.

US road deaths for 2011 were 1.10 per 100 million miles.

So it's in the ballpark of driving on US roads, and I assume much less than GA, though I didn't find a good number in 10 seconds of Googling.

I think you have too many zero's in your calculation...:confused:
 
The First World War was started by the killing of two people.

They weren't people. They were royalty. In those days, there was a big difference. In addition, the US didn't enter that war until over a thousand ordinary people were killed.
 
They weren't people. They were royalty. In those days, there was a big difference. In addition, the US didn't enter that war until over a thousand ordinary people were killed.

And let's hope we don't enter this one. :eek:
 
They weren't people. They were royalty. In those days, there was a big difference. In addition, the US didn't enter that war until over a thousand ordinary people were killed.

I forgot to mention:

"If corporations are people, so are royalty."

:D
 
Back
Top