United Max Hit by Falling Object at 36,000 Feet
Key topics
A United Airlines flight was hit by an unknown object at 36,000 feet, sparking speculation about the cause, with initial theories ranging from space debris to weather balloons, and the discussion reflecting a mix of skepticism and curiosity.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
17m
Peak period
70
0-6h
Avg / period
20
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 19, 2025 at 1:54 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 19, 2025 at 2:11 PM EDT
17m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
70 comments in 0-6h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 22, 2025 at 11:11 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
At 36,000 feet?
[1] https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Clean_Space/What_is_space_d...
[0]https://www.space.com/stargazing/meteor-showers/orionid-mete...
At speed, I don't know what the outside pressure on the windshield would be, but I'd be surprised if it was lower than the cabin air pressure.
After all, it is called a wind "shield".
It has happened before that cockpit windows have failed at altitude resulting in explosive decompression, and the plane still landed successfully. For example, British Airways Flight 5390:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_5390
How does that square with the picture of the pilot’s arm with tiny cuts? Did the space debris only damage the internal layer? Something is not adding up to me here.
A projectile hits the armor and doesn't penetrate it, but the armor inside still fragments and injured the operators
This was also adopted by The Expanse, where the interiors of ships (particularly war ships) are coated in antispalling coatings.
Might have been a mention on the Agatha King.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ThatLookedExpensive/comments/1oalnx...
But the coloration in the window sure suggests spalling. I’m surprised the tempered glass did that much damage. That takes a lot of velocity. Which is probably why they aren’t thinking bird.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ThatLookedExpensive/comments/1oalnx...
--
None of the articles I have seen have said the lacerations are a result of the "space debris" incident. The linked article simply says "One of the photos shows a pilot’s arm peppered with small cuts and scratches", and which is not the same as "the pilot said the shattering glass caused the cuts you see on his arm."
I am saying it is possible that the pilot had a previous, unrelated injury, and it just so happened to be captured in the picture of the windshield. That picture is going viral because it was likely one of the first pics from the incident, but it does not mean his injuries are necessarily from the incident. I was only pointing this out based on the way the blood looked more dried up and treated/healing.
Professional outlets do this all the time, and they're _paid_ not to mess this up. Copying other outlet's bad reporting without fact checking, then once a couple more "corroborating" articles come up (or one from a reputable outlet) and it'll just be repeated as fact, they can't all be wrong right?
Now it's "Digitize. Publicize. Monetize."
https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL1093/history/2025...
They are a well-known nemesis of military planes, that fly faster and don't have redundancy to survive a hit.
One notable example: https://news.alaskaair.com/alaska-airlines/flying-fish/
180 mph taken from a bit of googling, ballpark figure on upper end.
So this was really immediately after takeoff. My understanding of commercial airliners is they usually fly fairly parallel with the ground just after takeoff to pick up speed before ascending, so I would guess they hadn’t much altitude at all.
Anyway it’s a very interesting article, ty to poster! And it was an interesting question to think about.
https://store.gocomics.com/product/the-far-side-comic-art-pr...
Wait, military aircraft have LESS redundancy to survive "hits" than civil?
There are a few single engine aircraft roles (including the F104), but they are not and have never been the bulk of active serving aircraft. It isn’t just ‘technically’ true.
edit: ah but they are "military aircraft", sure. fine.
That's not to say they don't defend in depth, one reason twin engine fighters are desired is because of engine redundancy after all, but a more "armored" plain is a slower, bulkier, easier to detect and easier to hit target. And you'll still likely get taken down in one hit.
And there's still not a lot you can do if your engine swallows a bird or two, especially if you only have one.
The military also has the expectation that not everyone is going to come home, unlike a civilian airliner where the safety margins are much wider.
As a result, resilience isn't great.
Bombers and logistic planes have redundancy.
Some helicopters have a single engine. Most have 2. They are still unreliable death machines, and arguably 2 engines makes the problem a bit worse (more moving parts). They are (sometimes) more tolerant of a single engine out, of course. But transmissions are often the weak spot with helicopters.
Single vs Dual has many factors, not just reliability.
A single engine failure on a SR71 (if I remember correctly) resulted in a airframe loss and ejection at relatively low speeds, and one at full speed would likely result in a complete crew loss on top of it - and it has dual engines. Think catastrophic near instant destruction.
Sometimes you just need more power than a single engine (with current tech) can provide in the space you have available, for instance.
Sometimes, like an A10, you really do want something that can take a massive beating and keep going.
A B52 can lose 2 engines with no issues, and theoretically up to 4 and still be controllable (depending on the distribution of the lost engines). But that isn’t because it needs reliability, but because it’s got 8 engines because it was designed to carry a metric shit ton of explosives, and it only had 60’s era tech jet engines.
Modern jets usually use 2 (much more powerful) engines for similar or even larger payloads.
Depending on how fast the plane is going, "good chunk" might be a hilarious understatement too. Hitting an object at 1000mph imparts 4x the damage compared to hitting an object at 500mph.
If you want to see an example of a durable military aircraft, look at the A-10:
(Hit by a literal bird, still flying: https://www.nbcrightnow.com/news/a-10-warthog-hits-bird-at-r...)
(Hit by idk what, giant hole in engine, engine on fire, still flying for an hour back to base: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-another-story-10-warth...)
Anyways, that's a military plane designed to get hit by... stuff... and as a result can take bird strikes. But its max speed is like 400mph and it would get absolutely wrecked by any serious opposition from fighters. The more resilient you make a plane to birds, the more vulnerable it is to missiles, per unit price. And missiles is kinda the point of the whole endeavor.
How many single engine civilian jets are there?
The A-10 Warthog is known for being quite tough. It operates relatively slowly, at small-arms altitudes, so it can take a licking.
The only other thing really up that high would be space debris, weather balloon payload (the balloon itself is very thin and soft), or maybe a sounding rocket (but don’t these come with NOTAMs?).
A bird at hundreds of miles an hour leaves a heck of a blood trail.
Wish it used a larger more readable font or at least had an option for one though.
Jokes aside, this is good advice.
I only know that from Planet Earth documentary, which was such a great show!
Likely candidates are 1) some metal payload dangling from a defunct high-altitude balloon and
2) space rock.
Will be interesting to read if an investigative report is made public.
[1]https://viewfromthewing.com/new-cockpit-photos-may-show-what...
Hail is absolutely the most probably explanation, the article points to two other instances with similar outcomes. I think the doubt comes from the lack of evidence of hail or convective activity or other hail damage on the aircraft. Also, the pilot reportedly said he saw something coming at the aircraft.
I imagine most journalists would love to have technical reviewers on their work, but there's no funding for it and there's pressure to churn content as quickly as possible. The specialized editors and fact checkers have been stripped away in the last few decades to create lean content mills.
well, so, we call these people what they are : tabloid writers.
journalists are the ones that take the time, effort, and cost to verify claims and rebroadcast perceived truths.
A journalist deprived of resources might regress to what you call a tabloid writer, sure. But my issue is with framing it as a moral failing on their part, that they're too lazy or stupid or arrogant to get the facts right. Surely there are people like that, but it isn't most of them. This is a systemic issue. As a society we have failed to fund these activities.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/6d/79/e9/6d79e9982b92c476e1d671f31...
I’m sure the NTSB investigation will consider this angle, and we will find out eventually.
That said, I really doubt this was hail. The pilot is said to have seen something coming, which is probably why they are focused on a weather balloon payload now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_ice_(aviation)
They don't even seem to serve as visual cues.
Specifically the cartoon stock art clippy from the original video essay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_Dtmpe9qaQ
Notice how almost all the comments on that video bear the clippy icon. It's spreading everywhere. Twitter, Reddit, Instagram ...
Thr thing about the general public is that they're apathetic, they can't boycott their way out of a paper bag.
> “Apparently only one layer of the windshield was damaged, and there was no depressurization.”
And from the photos, it looks like it was the outer layer. So, where would the glass have come from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRM5zgE13_s
EDIT: looks like the audio starts when they are already arriving at SLC
64 more comments available on Hacker News