Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

Samsung Satellite Crashes Into Family's Backyard (wzzm13.com) 63

Posted by EditorDavid from the mission-in-Michigan dept.
"A Michigan family was shocked to find a space satellite in their yard Saturday morning," reports a local TV station: Nancy Mumby-Welke shared the video on Facebook, walking up to a satellite lying on its side. "You never know what's going to happen," Welke says in the video. "This baby fell out of the sky and landed in our yard," she went on to say.

According to the Gratiot County Herald, Welke heard the crash around 8:45 a.m. just before they were going to let their horses out. "Thank God none of the horses were out and it didn't land on the house," Welke explained in the video. Welke says when she walked up to it, the satellite was still humming and whirring...

The Herald says Samsung representatives will pick up the equipment from the Welkes' property.
In an announcement last week Samsung said their satellite "pushes the boundaries of innovation." That announcement also promised a "bold, out-of-this-world mission... demonstrating the pioneering spirit of its brand and setting a new standard for the potential of mobile technology."

The announcement said the satellite "will showcase the strength of Samsung's innovations and how it continues to design products that make what was previously impossible, possible." And it quotes their chief marketing officer for Europe as promising "we will show that amazing things continue to happen using Samsung technology."

In a statement to the Detroit Free Press, Samsung blamed the "early soft landing" during the satellite's planned descent on the weather. "We regret any inconvenience this may have caused."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung Satellite Crashes Into Family's Backyard More

Samsung Satellite Crashes Into Family's Backyard

Comments Filter:

  • "Satellite" is really high altitude balloon. (Score:5, Informative)

    by JoshuaZ ( 1134087 ) on Sunday October 27, 2019 @09:33AM (#59352418) Homepage
    Calling this a satellite is a bit misleading. As noted in the Samsung press release linked in the summary, this was put up using a balloon. The altitude was 65,000 ft., or 12 miles. For comparison, the Karman line (where space begins) is generally defined to be either 62 miles or 50 miles up. In order for a traditional satellite to manage to stay in orbit it needs to be about 150 miles up at minimum or it will quickly slow down and crash due to atmospheric drag.
    • Thank you, that was very confusing. Looking at photos in the article, it looks like a movie prop satellite, not anything that would go to space, and certainly not anything that has undergone reentry.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Or a halloween decoration.

    • I was about to say the same thing. Looking at the thing it looked like it was still pretty intact for something that supposedly fell from space. If it had been an actual satellite I imagine it would have been little more than than a pile of melted scrap metal from coming in through the atmosphere.
    • The Detroit Free Press article properly calls it a pseudo-satellite.

    • Sure, but as far as the family whose yard it crashed into, the difference is academic - a huge chunk of metal fell from the sky into their yard, and could easily have hit their house instead. It's irresponsible of Samsung to allow it, whether a satellite or a high altitude balloon payload, to come down in a populated area!

      • Thank you! Your post shows that there is hope for Slashdot, even though it may sound like everybody's wondering if the leading detergent would take the bloodstain off a white t-shirt; there is the voice in the back saying "Is no one even going to comment that they have bigger problems than picking the right detergent?"

        Won't somebody think of the horses?

      • It's only academic till you run the numbers on what would have happened to their yard if a satellite large enough to survive reentry had crashed into it. Then they're going to be very, very glad it only came down from 65,000 feet.

      • So it'd be irresponsible for car manufacturers to build cars that can crash into someone's yard?

      • Definitely not academic (although irresponsible of Samsung nonetheless). A satellite That survived re-entry would have had much more kinetic energy, been blazing hot, left a crater and sent shrapnel everywhere. If it hit their house it would have cause major damage at the least, not to mention a fire and potentially a chemical release.

        It being from a weather balloon means that it had none of these problems. Based on the fact that it was largely intact means that it landed pretty softly (did I see a parachut

      • It came down on a parachute and made a soft landing. If it had landed on the house, it would have made a small thud and maybe slightly damaged a roof tile.

        I once found a similar "satellite" in our garden. The payload was a card with a little girl's name from some contest. And unlike the Samsung one, ours didn't even have a parachute! Imagine the mayhem if it had landed on our roof instead of in the bushes! So irresponsible, I should have sued that girl.

      • a huge chunk of metal fell from the sky into their yard, and could easily have hit their house instead. It's irresponsible of Samsung to allow it, whether a satellite or a high altitude balloon payload, to come down in a populated area!

        Watching the video I would argue the word "fell" is used loosely here. The balloon payload in the video is nearly intact, including the delicate bits. I suspect it slowly returned to earth after the balloon lost sufficient lift. Sure, it could have damaged some roof shingles. Unclear how well thought through this was by Samsung, but to their credit I did just type the name of their company twice and am about to again.

        An aside--what terrible reporting of facts by that news outlet to allow Samsung's marketing

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Whatever it is, I hope that family charges Samsung an arm and a leg to get it back. Since it fell on their property without their consent, it is legally their property and they don't have to give it back to Samsung at all if they don't want to.

    • Calling this a satellite is a bit misleading.

      The question is, why? Which media outlets have financial relationships with Samsung? Why are they selling the corporate line that this was a "satellite" taking the "first space selfies" when it's not a satellite, not in space, and astronauts have been taking selfies for decades?

    • Even if it went into space (which it didn't), it still wouldn't be a satellite unless it were actually in orbit around the earth.

      But hey, they got people talking about it on Slashdot, so I guess the mission was a great success.

  • Not a satellite, a high-altitude balloon (Score:5, Informative)

    by ToTheStars ( 4807725 ) on Sunday October 27, 2019 @09:34AM (#59352424)
    I've worked on both kinds of projects, and while there's great science and educational work being done on balloons, it's a completely different challenge to go all the way into space vs. floating above 99% of the atmosphere.

  • Pushing the boundaries? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    That announcement also promised a "bold, out-of-this-world mission... demonstrating the pioneering spirit of its brand and setting a new standard for the potential of mobile technology

    The russians managed to get a satellite into orbit in the 1950s... i wouldn't say crashing one into someones back yard was really pushing any boundaries.

  • "Catch It And You Keep It!"

    (That's a National Lampoon Radio Hour reference, kids.)

  • Shoddiest of the shoddy journalism. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Myself ( 57572 ) on Sunday October 27, 2019 @09:58AM (#59352468) Journal

    These dimwits can't even correct Samsung's misleading-or-fraudulent use of the word "satellite" when they mean "balloon", much less fact-check that amateur high-altitude balloons have been taking so-called "selfies" for decades?

    I'm not surprised, sadly.

    • Re:Shoddiest of the shoddy journalism. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Sunday October 27, 2019 @10:24AM (#59352504)

      So the idea here apparently was this Samsung “satellite” would get up to 65000 feet and then start taking photos of people’s submitted selfies, which are being displayed on a S10 which is mounted on the “satellite”. Then those pictures would be sent back to the people who submitted their selfies, who could then display these photos as “selfies in space”.

      That sounds about as interesting as a photo of a selfie displayed in front of the Welke’s horse pasture. Which, given the satellite was still “humming and whirring”, is what some people will be receiving.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ruddk ( 5153113 )

      It’s worth it for the clicks. Apparently.

    • 'Samsung's misleading-or-fraudulent use of the word "satellite"'

      Do you have a reference where Samsung uses the word "satellite"? In all of the Samsung material and direct quotes that I have found so far they use "balloon".

  • I would love that. THing about how much you could get for it on ebay!!!!
  • It was a high-altitude balloon, not a satellite. I'd still like to have one in my back yard.

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday October 27, 2019 @10:37AM (#59352560)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • You're much more likely to get it from button, crimini, and portabello mushrooms, though.

    Don't eat raw mushrooms!

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]

    • Thanks, that's an interesting abstract. However, instead of feeding the lab animals mushrooms, they were fed the pure toxic substances for their whole lifespans (and I presume in large doses). A human eating mushrooms does so occasionally and in small doses. Also, is it actually known that cooking makes them safe?

  • Ugly Truth About Samsung (Score:3, Informative)

    by reporter ( 666905 ) on Sunday October 27, 2019 @11:49AM (#59352688) Homepage

    The crash of the satellite is a serious matter. If the falling object had hit a person, it could have killed him.

    The euphemistic manner in which Samsung described the incident masks an ugly truth about the company.

    A recent report [nytimes.com] by the New York Times stated the ugly truth. "Internally, Samsung's corporate culture may also have compounded any issues. Two former Samsung employees, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation from the company, described the workplace as militaristic, with a top-down approach where orders came from people high above who did not necessarily understand how product technologies actually worked."

    • Samsung leadership decided to kill the product after "fixes" proposed by engineer didn't actually work and, As the article puts it, "a nearly two-month fall for Samsung, which has taken a beating from investors, safety regulators and consumers over its trustworthiness".

      After losing $10 billion and facing higher losses if they continued in that, deciding when it was time to give up involved a lot of considerations, including what various government agencies may do. Also important - "how much can we afford t

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Pyramid ( 57001 )

      Had you read the article instead of falling for the click-bait, you'd know it wasn't a real satellite, but a small balloon lofted payload that was still operating after it landed.

      The chances of actually killing anyone not already 99% dead were nil.

  • The they can't fold properly. And now this. Way to go, Samsung.

  • Where did real journalism go? (Score:3)

    by az-saguaro ( 1231754 ) on Sunday October 27, 2019 @01:03PM (#59352854)

    More over-dramatized "journalism" with sensational headlines.
    As already commented, it is an aerial vehicle of some sort, a box on a balloon. Falling out of the sky could have caused injury, but not likely very serious. Look at the picture:

    "Satellite crashes..."

    I expected to see charred or twisted metal and melt.
    - Instead, a nearly intact vehicle, only small peripheral parts snapped off with minimum damage to the structure as a whole. It is an aerial vehicle that did not fall too far or fast.
    - A red tether snagged in the tree - meaning it floated down, terminal velocity probably not much more than a fender bender crash.
    - As such, if it fell on a person or pet, it might have been damaging, but if it fell on a residential roof, I doubt it would have done any more damage than pop a few shingles.

    - A tinker toy construction hardly made to be a durable operating craft.
    - Landing legs, not ordinary issue on a satellite.

    - No alerts or response by the Air Force or other watchdogs who monitor things in orbit.

    So, not much more to it than a model airplane or drone "crashing" in your backyard.
    Caption on the family Facebook webpage says "Oh my look what fall out of the sky" - accurate and relatable.
    Title and text on the ABC channel 13 website says "a space satellite crashed". It was not from space, not a satellite, and it hardly crashed.
    Oh, for the good old days when journalists did journalism and left advertising and circus barking to the carny's and patent medicine hucksters.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • "Whose satellite is this satellite?"

  • Believe I saw it on ADS-B (Score:3)

    by DieByWire ( 744043 ) on Sunday October 27, 2019 @07:27PM (#59353634)

    A morning or two ago (already forgotten) I was looking at the local ADS-B traffic and saw target reporting to be at 59500 a little south of the Twin Cities, drifting ESE at 35 knots. PiAware identified it as N260TH which shows up as a Gulfstream G4 17 years ago. Obviously not a G4 now.

    Not sure where they launched from, but from Samsungs's website:

    "While carrying a bespoke payload box that holds the phone, our balloon will soar into the stratosphere above the rugged terrain of the American Midwest."

    Fortunately, it cleared our rugged terrain by a mere 58K or so.

  • Don't the farm owners have some sort of salvage rights to the equipment?

    • Here's a question: If a truck trailer breaks loose and stops on a farmer's property, does he get to own it? If a plane crashes onto private property? Etc...

      The general rule is that the property has to be abandoned for the land owner to claim it.

      What the land owner can do is:
      1. Charge for repair/replacement of any property damaged by the impact.
      2. maybe charge storage fees if the property is left there for an extended period of time.

  • After all, it just crash landed withut exploding. Well done, Samsung!
  • The family should make them ACTUALLY regret for the inconvenience they have caused by suing them. Companies should stop thinking they are not responsible for where the stuff they launch lands.
  • Yes, let's put ten thousand more "satellites" up for trivial, unnecessary, corporation's reason X; it's no big deal...

  • By definition, a "satellite" is an object that orbits another body, At no point did this balloon lofted payload meet any criteria that qualifies as "orbit".

    • If it stayed aloft at 65000 ft and stayed roughly over the same spot on the ground, then could it be claimed as being in geo-synchronous orbit?

Slashdot Top Deals

"It might help if we ran the MBA's out of Washington." -- Admiral Grace Hopper

Close