[HN Gopher] UA 1093
___________________________________________________________________
UA 1093
CEO Tweet: https://twitter.com/johndeanl/status/1980462264974209292
Author : c420
Score : 202 points
Date : 2025-10-21 14:11 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (windbornesystems.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (windbornesystems.com)
| TechSquidTV wrote:
| Huh, I just saw the Scott Manly video where he called out a
| comment of someone mentioning a weather balloon. Props to that
| guy.
| JCM9 wrote:
| Interesting. The "big sky" theory has its limits.
|
| Curious too to learn more about what data, if any, is shared with
| ATC on the location of these balloons. Airspace is regularly
| blocked off for rockets and other use, but for many weather
| balloons the theory is 1) the sky is big, and 2) designs are
| meant to be that a strike with an aircraft wouldn't cause
| significant damage. If this was an impact with a balloon payload
| then "2" looks problematic.
| consp wrote:
| Isn't this pure statistics? The big sky isn't as big since
| planes always follow certain patterns and so do weather
| balloons (because wind also has patterns). Now someone needs to
| do some black magic with that model and calculate the arrival
| time distribution of accidents and you get to see if this is an
| outlier or not.
| barbazoo wrote:
| > planes always follow certain patterns
|
| At any particular and above a certain flight level maybe.
| pcthrowaway wrote:
| The birthday paradox seems relevant here as well: With 23
| people, your chance of having a "collision" in birthdays is
| over 50%. With more objects in the sky, the chance of
| collision is likely greater than one would assume given the
| space they have to occupy.
| pastel8739 wrote:
| Though the birthday paradox is concerned with self-
| collisions, I think since these are explicitly collisions
| with other objects it feels less paradoxical to compute
| cloverich wrote:
| Related, i dont know what the technical term for this is, but
| was thinking about how because of speed, being in two places
| at once (collision) the equation depends greatly on speed.
| Simplistically, if planes traveled at the speed of light then
| an object on ANY point of their trajectory would collide.
|
| Much more complex than simply amount of space times size of
| objects. Knowing theres a whole science / engineering behind
| this, Im just so curious about the people and practices that
| go into this part of travel especially air and space travel.
| celeritascelery wrote:
| In hindsight, the fact that it was probably a balloon and not
| space debris makes a lot of sense. Something falling from space
| would only spend a few seconds at most in the zone where
| airplanes cruise but a weather balloon would be there
| significantly longer. Makes the chance of collisions much higher.
| blackcatsec wrote:
| I mean, it also makes sense considering space debris would have
| hit that plane with significantly more force than a busted
| window.
| Polizeiposaune wrote:
| Really depends on how big the space debris was and whether it
| had slowed to terminal velocity (the speed where the force of
| gravity equals the force of drag).
|
| I'd rather be in a plane hit by 1 gram piece of space debris
| than in one that hit a 1kg sandbag hanging from a balloon.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| There are thousands of flights every day for decades. There's
| going to be a collision at some point.
| modeless wrote:
| > The system is designed to not pose a risk to human life in the
| worst case event of a collision. This is what the FAA 101 and
| ICAO weight limits are for. And indeed, there were no serious
| injuries and no depressurization event to my knowledge as a
| result of the collision.
|
| This seems close to a worst case scenario for this failure mode,
| and everyone is still OK. I consider that good engineering.
| blackcatsec wrote:
| A reminder for those in the back, government regulation made
| this safe (FAA limits).
|
| And yes, this is good engineering, but through decades of
| learning crowdfunded with tax dollars.
| artursapek wrote:
| Anyone arguing against government regulation as a whole is
| completely delusional. Companies can't be trusted to regulate
| themselves.
| baggy_trough wrote:
| The problem is we don't have a garbage collection method to
| get rid of counterproductive or even insane regulations, so
| they build up into a choking plaque over time.
| anjel wrote:
| https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_agency_rules_repealed_und
| er_...
|
| You can argue that is not effective enough perhaps, but
| the mechanism itself exists.
| baggy_trough wrote:
| It needs to be much stronger than the ability to pass new
| regulations, but it's much weaker instead.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Is that really true?
|
| An agency can remove a regulation it created. Congress
| (via the linked law) can also remove a regulation.
| Congress can also create regulations via legislation
| (though they typically don't go to that level of detail).
|
| And we have to remember, at one point, every regulation
| that exists was created to solve a problem / prevent a
| harm. The cost of removing that regulation prematurely is
| reintroducing that problem / harm.
| bjt wrote:
| The problem is more about regulatory capture. An industry
| adapts to a regulation, and creates winners and losers.
| Once the regulation no longer makes sense (costs
| taxpayers/consumers more than it benefits), those who are
| winning from it have a strong interest in keeping it
| around anyway.
|
| A good example is the state franchise laws against car
| manufacturers owning dealerships. Why can't Toyota sell
| me a car directly? Direct manufacturer sales seem to work
| fine in other contexts (e.g. Ikea). In Europe they're
| moving more and more direct sales. There's no good reason
| to keep them here in the US, but the dealership owners
| who benefit from these laws are the only people impacted
| directly enough to bother hiring lobbyists.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Agreed. And, IMO, the fix to regulatory capture isn't
| adding a mechanism to directly make deregulation easier.
| Instead, it's to (somehow) remove the money from
| politics/campaigning.
| baggy_trough wrote:
| > And we have to remember, at one point, every regulation
| that exists was created to solve a problem / prevent a
| harm.
|
| It would be comforting to believe so, but that requires
| ignoring every aspect of human nature.
| hangsi wrote:
| There is a mechanism for this, internationally usually
| named some variant of a Law Commission [0]. The idea is
| to look for laws that are technically in effect but can
| rarely or never be applied. For example, the UK Law
| Commission boasts a repeal of 3000+ acts in its time [1],
| such as repealing rules for conducting slave trades that
| were made obsolete in the 1800s but not repealed at the
| time.
|
| In addition to the sibling comment's mention of the
| Congressional Review Act for agency oversight, there is a
| US Office of the Law Revision Counsel [2]. It has an
| official website [3] which is beautifully old-fashioned,
| but looks to be purely a resource for accessing the
| letter of the law and doesn't recount its volume of
| repeals in the same way.
|
| None of this matters if the insane or counterproductive
| regulations are deliberate and desirable for the current
| lawmakers, of course.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_commission [1]
| https://lawcom.gov.uk/repeals/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.o
| rg/wiki/Office_of_the_Law_Revision_Cou... [3]
| https://uscode.house.gov/
| vkou wrote:
| We do, it's called the legislature.
|
| Half the legislature campaigns on _not_ doing anything if
| they get elected, though, and when they get elected, you
| get... Well, you get a lot of different things, most of
| them awful.
| dlcarrier wrote:
| This event was unsafe, despite being wholly within the
| regulations, but in the comments of this post, the CEO of
| the company has made a promise to do better:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45656044#45659295
|
| Government regulators have failed, but at least the company
| is making an effort to prevent this from happening again.
| dlcarrier wrote:
| A reminder to those who presume regulators make the right
| decisions, a cheap ADSB out transponder would have prevented
| this incident, but putting one on a weather balloon is
| prohibited by the FAA.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Prohibited? _Why?_
|
| Will air travel become _safer_ because we don 't know where
| they are?
| MPSimmons wrote:
| What happens to the payload mass when you add the
| transponder?
| dlcarrier wrote:
| It could easily be less than a percent of added weight,
| considering that there's probably already batteries and a
| GPS receiver on the balloon.
| ggreer wrote:
| The FCC requires that airborne transmitters identify
| themselves by broadcasting the an FAA designator such as
| the aircraft registration number.[1] The FAA has no
| identification or registration process for small weather
| balloons. So this effectively prohibits them from
| broadcasting. It's possible to add a radar reflector, but
| they add significant weight and bulk to the balloon's
| payload. I think reflectors are only required for larger
| weather balloons.
|
| 1. See SS 87.107: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR
| -2024-title47-vol5/pd...
| Someone1234 wrote:
| An ADSB transponder, along with supporting electronics and
| battery will add to the weight of the aircraft. It makes it
| safer in one way, and less safe is another. This isn't
| quite the "slam dunk" you seem to believe.
| ggreer wrote:
| Weather balloons already have restrictions on weight to
| minimize the consequences of collisions. The issue is
| that even if you can add a transmitter and meet the
| weight requirements, it's currently not possible to
| legally broadcast ADS-B data from a weather balloon.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| They would need to increase the weight requirements if
| they're to add ADSB. Current ADSB transponders weigh as
| much as the entire weather balloon's package. Then add on
| the pounds of weight for batteries.
| ggreer wrote:
| The uAvionix ping200X weighs 50 grams according to its
| datasheet.[1] With a 1.5W continuous power draw, a 60
| gram lithium battery would power it for 8 hours, for a
| total of 110 grams. WindBorne balloons weigh 1.1kg at
| launch (including ballast), and the FAA limit for such
| balloons is 2kg.
|
| 1. https://uavionix.com/wp-
| content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2025/07/...
| dlcarrier wrote:
| The balloons likely already have batteries and GPS
| receivers. An extra radio and antenna would add a few
| grams of weight and tens of mW of power consumption. That
| could be well under one percent more weight.
|
| It's much, much lighter than a radar reflector, which
| aircraft weather radar displays aren't even designed to
| display.
| thedudeabides5 wrote:
| isn't the worst case it goes into the engine and it
| explodes/burns?
| trenchpilgrim wrote:
| No, because the plane is designed to safely fly without an
| engine. They test the engines by shooting turkeys from the
| grocery store into them while they run.
| bdangubic wrote:
| without working one working engine - sure. with serious
| structural damage - perhaps not so much
| trenchpilgrim wrote:
| Yes, with serious structural damage. It's part of
| certification process for the engine:
| https://youtu.be/iBqWS1hil18
| MaxfordAndSons wrote:
| I think GP meant structural damage to the airframe. That
| said, I think there are some modes of structural damage a
| modern plane can sustain and still fly, but to gp's
| point, probably not many.
| bdangubic wrote:
| yes I did :)
| trenchpilgrim wrote:
| The FAA limits the mass of a weather balloon for this
| reason. I also would not be surprised to see new
| regulation on the distribution of that mass as a result
| of this incident.
| ggreer wrote:
| There are some limitations on such balloons already. For
| example, if the payload is 4-6lbs, stricter rules apply
| if the weight/size ratio is greater than three ounces per
| square inch (measured by the smallest surface on the
| payload).[1]
|
| Also for larger balloons, any trailing antenna must break
| if subjected to an impact force of 50lbs, or the antenna
| must have colored streamers every 50ft.
|
| The ideal measurement would be some sort of crash
| testing. eg: The payload is accelerated at some standard
| velocity towards some standard target that represents the
| weakest part of an airplane (either cockpit glass or
| leading edge of a wing) and must not damage the target
| beyond some threshold. But that seems like it would be
| expensive, since every change in payload would require
| re-testing. Limits on sectional density seem like a good
| compromise.
|
| 1. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subcha
| pter-F...
| cbm-vic-20 wrote:
| As god as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. Through
| jet engines.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| Pretty sure even Les wouldn't have thought that ;-)
| MPSimmons wrote:
| See, now I'm thinking of mayonnaise injectors to make
| instance turkey salad
| eirikbakke wrote:
| Afterwards, they ship the entire engine, with turkey
| giblets and all, to a lab where the resulting damage is
| analyzed. Smells awful, according to the engineer I sat
| next to at a Thanksgiving dinner once...
| Polizeiposaune wrote:
| Hopefully the giblets at your Thanksgiving dinner didn't
| come from the engine-sliced turkeys...
| modeless wrote:
| Exactly. The plane can land with one engine or even no
| engines, but it can't land without a pilot in a functioning
| cockpit.
| 3D30497420 wrote:
| There's even a whole Wikipedia article on the "chicken gun"
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_gun
| dlcarrier wrote:
| Depressurizations are worse than losing an engine. It can
| incapacitate the flight crew in seconds.
| johnldean0 wrote:
| WindBorne cofounder CEO (John Dean) here -- Thanks, indeed I
| think that a strike to the cockpit glass, in the corner where
| there is more stress concentration, is one of the worst places
| to hit for human safety. And indeed the system was designed to
| be safe in the event of a collision.
|
| But still, in light of this I think we can do better. I think
| it's possible to operate the way we do and have a the mass
| distributed such that the only damage is ever cosmetic. We
| follow FAA 101 regulations on this but I want to have better
| internal impact modeling as well.
| MPSimmons wrote:
| It's unfortunate that this happened, but this will help drive
| better engineering decisions in the future for everyone. Glad
| everyone is mostly okay from this!
| tyre wrote:
| Pretty great, public response from you to publish this and be
| in the comments here. Kudos. I hope more CEOs take your lead.
| dlcarrier wrote:
| Please put pressure on the FAA to do better too. NOTAMS, as
| they currently are, are pretty useless, and allowing unmanned
| vessels to output ADS-B could be extremely beneficial.
| johnldean0 wrote:
| Yea, the FAA does a lot and I think overall they do a great
| job, but I wish there was better systems for communications
| here. I think ultimately companies like WindBorne just have
| to go above and beyond what is required if they want to
| operate at scale safely in this space. And no one else
| operates balloons at the scale that we do, and safety has
| to be built into the design and operations regardless of
| how the official systems work.
| astroflection wrote:
| https://windbornesystems.com/faq#airplanes
|
| https://windbornesystems.com/blog/ua-1093
| filenox wrote:
| Context:
|
| https://abcnews.go.com/US/mystery-object-hits-united-airline...
|
| https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/us-news/injured-...
| amelius wrote:
| Glad it wasn't this guy:
|
| https://www.redbull.com/int-en/vincent-reffet-and-yves-rossy...
| davidkwast wrote:
| LOL
| Gravityloss wrote:
| Who would have believed, what was suspected of being a mysterious
| malevolence coming from outer space, was just a quaint weather
| balloon all along!
|
| Somehow that rings some faint bell but can't quite put my finger
| on it...
| bombcar wrote:
| It's probably a decorated bell, some form of art bell ...
| testplzignore wrote:
| Give me... sugar. More. More.
| BubbleRings wrote:
| Okay you two... Sugar and Art Bell. I had to get ChatGPT to
| refresh my memory, but I'm with you now... hovering like a fly,
| waiting for the windshield on the freeway.
| gnabgib wrote:
| Discussions
|
| (399 points, 2 days ago, 222 comments)
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45636285
|
| (35 points, 2 days ago, 55 comments)
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45633191
|
| Related: _It was a weather balloon, not space debris, that struck
| a United Airlines plane_ (12 points)
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45652120
| vincefutr23 wrote:
| The second photo ..
|
| https://windbornesystems.com/mission
| thorsson12 wrote:
| It is surprising that weather balloons don't have ADS-B out (or
| did this ballon have that and something about the system didn't
| work?). If it did work, ADS-B would have made this collision very
| avoidable.
| nine_k wrote:
| What are the power requirements of ADS-B? How much more battery
| would the balloon have to lift?
| naberhausj wrote:
| About the same as a transponder, I think. According to the
| FAA many weather balloons operate their transponders (if
| equipped at all) intermittently to preserve battery.
| mattofak wrote:
| The uAvionix EchoESX [1] claims 4W continuous and with
| antenna probably adds 400g (0.8lb.)
|
| WindBorne claims "12+ days typical flight, with demonstrated
| capability for 75+ day missions." So 1150Wh minimum (80Ah at
| 4S, which is probably like 16lb.) But you're up in the
| atmosphere and probably need to heat that battery so... more.
| But we're already at 18lb additional weight... Maybe you
| could offset with solar panels...
|
| But, given that the entire balloon and payload weighs 2.5lb
| we're already way off the edge of feasibility for an active
| ads-b out.
|
| Maybe there's something that would only listen and then
| respond when it heard something and that would reduce the
| power draw. But we're needing something 2 orders of magnitude
| less massive.
|
| [1] https://uavionix.com/general-aviation/echoesx/
| yabones wrote:
| Even a radar reflector would have helped a lot. ADS-B is off-
| limits for balloons, ultralights, hang-gliders, etc, and it
| seems like now that radio beacons can be manufactured very
| cheap & low power all those non-commercial aerial vehicles
| should be equipped.
| imglorp wrote:
| Off limits? What's the reason? Why not ADS-B everything in
| the air and let the computers sort it out?
| alistairSH wrote:
| It's not off-limits. But, it's not required (for most
| balloons, ULs, etc). And due to cost and/or weight, people
| don't always use it when it's not mandatory.
| mbreese wrote:
| The comments I was reading at ArsTechnica suggested that
| adding transponders was off-limits to balloons. The
| argument was that balloon operators wanted to add
| transponders but that it was resisted by FAA worrying
| about there being too many non-plane transponders for
| pilots/ATC to keep track of.
|
| I obviously don't know which is right, but it does show
| that there is definitely confusion out there about the
| issue.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| It's not off limits in the regulatory sense. Balloons are
| generally exempted due to their size and power constraints.
| Per the submission, the balloon weighs 2.4 lbs at launch.
| That doesn't give them much room to add a transponder and
| battery for ADS-B while staying within the target weight
| limit.
| naberhausj wrote:
| 47 CFR 87.107 requires that radios transmitters in aircraft
| broadcast an identification number, and the allowed forms
| of identification aren't permissive enough for non-
| registered aircraft.
|
| ADS-B out is still relatively new (especially in aviation
| terms) so I expect we'll see this continue to evolve.
| toast0 wrote:
| For a 2.5 lb ground weight balloon, a radar reflector is
| likely still too heavy. The lightest weight marine radar
| reflector [1] I could find is about half a pound.
|
| [1] https://www.westmarine.com/plastimo-tubular-radar-
| reflector-...
| wat10000 wrote:
| Marine applications care a lot about durability and pretty
| much zero about weight, so I wouldn't expect that to be
| representative of how light they can be. You could make a
| radar reflector from a bit of cardboard and aluminum foil.
| kawfey wrote:
| you can make one out of cardboard and aluminum foil (better
| yet, aluminized mylar (space blanket) on foam) on the order
| of a few oz. https://www.instructables.com/Lightweight-
| Radar-Reflector/
|
| A radar reflector such as that, or this
| (https://overlookhorizon.com/product/radar-reflector/,
| which is ~300g) has roughly the same RCS as a small (piper
| cherokee) to medium (gulfstream) sized aircraft.
|
| That being said, detection isn't everything; primary radar
| cannot make accurate altitude measurements, only bearing
| and range. While that's enough to route traffic around, it
| could be also mistaken for a false return.
| toast0 wrote:
| Any idea how much that homemade one weighs? 300g for the
| commercial one is more than half a pound, similar to the
| one I linked but a different shape.
| anjel wrote:
| Google's late great balloon project wasn't about weather but it
| did regularly show up on ADS-B
| bri3d wrote:
| ADS-B, as regulated, is a terrible solution for this stuff.
| EIRP requirements make it extremely impractical as a
| transmission solution for small devices, most ADS-B In
| equipment isn't designed to correctly alert for separation with
| non-fixed wing devices, and (due in no small part to the very
| high EIRP), there are concerns about both air-time saturation
| and management plane saturation (ie - ADS-B In equipment also
| wasn't designed to track very many entities).
| kawfey wrote:
| Some do. Edge of Space Sciences (EOSS) is group of citizen high
| altitude scientists, and their large balloon flights include
| certified ADS-B transponders [0] and radar corner reflectors.
| They also file their flights with the FAA to publish NOTAMS.
| They have significantly larger payloads than this, but are
| designed to quickly ascend to ~100kft and pop reducing the
| loiter time in congested airspace.
|
| Project Loon balloons also show up on Flightaware, so they
| either have ADS-B or TIS-B.
|
| A situation like this will almost certainly cause some
| congresspeople to fret and write bills that would require ADS-B
| on all balloons, which would be a death knell for amateur
| ballooning unless ADS-B (or "legacy" Mode A/C/S) transponders
| become significantly smaller and more affordable. Mode C/S
| transponders are already available in miniaturized form factors
| thanks to the UAS industry, and are designed to be interrogated
| by aircraft equipped with TCAS (i.e. all 10+ passenger
| aircraft) that provides pilots deconfliction commands
| automatically and with no ATC support. But they're still priced
| for industry, not amateurs.
|
| [0] https://www.eoss.org/ Look for N991SS, N992SS, N461SG.
| mrdoornbos wrote:
| THIS is how you react to an incident. Bravo to this company.
| rocmcd wrote:
| What I don't get is how did the pilots not see it? Are they that
| hard to see, or was vision obscured? The balloon in the attached
| picture looks pretty large.
| dcrazy wrote:
| The actual part they impacted seems rather small. It's
| basically a 2lb sandbag with a solar panel stuck to it.
| trothamel wrote:
| I believe it was night out, so you wouldn't really have any
| light to illuminate it externally.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| At normal cruise, a B737 is travelling at 700 feet/second.
| You're not going to have much time to do anything but go, "oh,
| fuck!"
| the__alchemist wrote:
| Fighters can pick up balloons like this on radar, and you can
| see them in targeting pods (e.g. cued from the radar). You can
| see them with eyes if you get close, but it's not a guarantee.
| fnord77 wrote:
| looks like the window frame took the brunt of the hit.
|
| wonder if things would have been different if it hit the center
| of the window
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| What changes does one make to a balloon to minimize time spent
| between specific altitudes?
| trenchpilgrim wrote:
| The balloon has a sand ballast that it can release sand from to
| descend.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| Releasing sand will cause it to ascend, not descend. Balloons
| descend by reducing lift, which means releasing gas or
| allowing the balloon to burst and releasing a parachute (for
| a controlled descent, if you don't care about control, just
| let the balloon burst).
| dlcarrier wrote:
| > We have been coordinating with the FAA for the entire history
| of the company and file NOTAMs (aviation alerts) for every
| balloon we launch.
|
| At this point, I'm pretty confident that NOTAMs exist as a way
| relegate all liability to pilots. Really it's 14 CFR 91.103,
| which opens with "Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a
| flight, become familiar with all available information concerning
| that flight", that allows NOTAMS to transfer liability.
|
| Theoretically CFRs are limited to powers specifically authorized
| by congress, but in practice, they are full of overreach that is
| only limited when it becomes case law, but the FAA is so powerful
| that it can effectively shut down any organization trying to
| dispute them in federal courts, so there isn't really any case
| law limiting the scope of their CFRs.
| imglorp wrote:
| NOTAM system is archaic and basically useless for this kind of
| thing. It's a blob of text which will not be specific,
| memorable, and actionable for an airline pilot, who is on their
| jetway at FL036 -- an altitude and speed where "see and avoid"
| doesn't really apply for a bunch of reasons -- and depending on
| ATC to route them around hazards.
|
| https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/31058/are-weath...
|
| There REALLY needs to be a unified ATC system that incorporates
| NOTAMS, traffic, and live position of whatever unmanned stuff
| is moving around. We have most of the tech deployed already. We
| have to integrate it.
| thomascountz wrote:
| OT, but the response from Windborne and its CEO makes me think it
| would be a great place to work.
| ndneighbor wrote:
| The unfortunate irony is not lost on me that Windbourne's H1 is
| "record breaking Weather Balloons".
|
| I don't think any company would want this record. I am very glad
| the pilot and the souls on board are safe.
| elAhmo wrote:
| I wonder how much damage to the society should Musk do before
| people stop posting links to Twitter.
| ikamm wrote:
| I don't know why you would expect a forum of wannabe tech
| startup founders to turn on Elon Musk, many people here still
| idolize him.
| whycome wrote:
| Do you stop using American products when you don't agree with
| the ones running it?
| whycome wrote:
| How easy are these baloons to track? What prevents a bad actor
| from using them to cause damage?
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| It's very hard to make it go to a specific place of the actor's
| choice.
|
| There were attempts to use balloons as long range weapons in
| WW2 but they weren't very effective.
|
| Bad actors have a lot of ways to cause damage, most of them
| much more effective than balloons.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-21 23:01 UTC)