Chinese surveillance balloon spotted over U.S., Pentagon says(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Chinese surveillance balloon spotted over U.S., Pentagon says
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/02/02/chinese-spy-balloon-pentagon/
446 comments
Video of the balloon https://twitter.com/rawsalerts/status/1621294430081761280
A lot of people don't realize that a relatively simple balloon can be designed to take off from anywhere in the world, reach any other point in the world, and hover for multiple days sending back data with very little deviation. All the balloon needs is a way to change its altitude, that's it, it doesn't need any actuators to move in horizontal direction.
Google's project Loon (https://x.company/projects/loon/) did this and I thought it was pretty darn cool. The way it works is this: different layers of stratosphere have different wind directions. If you can accurately predict the wind directions in different layers, you can in theory move in horizontal direction just by changing your altitude. Loon had pretty good models and simulated the wind directions well. Their balloon used to take off from Nevada and reach Kenya (I believe) and hover there for multiple days to provide comms. They use a cool reinforcement learning based controller in their loop: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2939-8
I remember some Chinese researchers writing papers on this topic back then and them saying they'd have good results if they had access to data from Loon: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep45976 I don't think Loon ever shared any data publicly (I was wrong, they did apparently open source a ton of data) but Loon did get shut down (like a lot of other Alphabet's moonshots) and I remember some of their tech and patents were sold to SoftBank and others. I was surprised US did not try to stop this in the interest of national security.
Google's project Loon (https://x.company/projects/loon/) did this and I thought it was pretty darn cool. The way it works is this: different layers of stratosphere have different wind directions. If you can accurately predict the wind directions in different layers, you can in theory move in horizontal direction just by changing your altitude. Loon had pretty good models and simulated the wind directions well. Their balloon used to take off from Nevada and reach Kenya (I believe) and hover there for multiple days to provide comms. They use a cool reinforcement learning based controller in their loop: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2939-8
I remember some Chinese researchers writing papers on this topic back then and them saying they'd have good results if they had access to data from Loon: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep45976 I don't think Loon ever shared any data publicly (I was wrong, they did apparently open source a ton of data) but Loon did get shut down (like a lot of other Alphabet's moonshots) and I remember some of their tech and patents were sold to SoftBank and others. I was surprised US did not try to stop this in the interest of national security.
This is what makes the Albuquerque ballon festival kind of unique (they call it the box). Balloons take off fly away, change altitude and fly back to land in almost the same place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albuquerque_International_Ball...
https://www.krqe.com/news/balloon-fiesta/local-pilot-explain...
Except the day I went, which is something.. Still quite the sight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albuquerque_International_Ball...
https://www.krqe.com/news/balloon-fiesta/local-pilot-explain...
Except the day I went, which is something.. Still quite the sight.
well, you almost got it. you forgot the part where the fly past for a distance so that when they start to lower altitude, it brings them back to the start. what you describe doesn't really make a box
What is "the fly past for a distance"?
IIRC it’s related to the nearby mountains. Fly up, pushed towards mountains, go lower, pushed back towards the river/valley were launched. I feel for other people who didn’t get to grow up seeing those balloons every year on their way to school or random times.
NM also has the “original burning man” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zozobra.
NM also has the “original burning man” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zozobra.
Just to put numbers on it for example…Say they travel 1 mile down range where they then rise in altitude. Now, they float back 2 miles before lowering altitude to travel back 1 mile to where they started.
They fly past for a 1 mile distance in this example
They fly past for a 1 mile distance in this example
I think I saw in a museum once that that's how Japan sent over bombs during second world war. They were able to calculate that even back then. It's crazy impressive.
Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu-Go_balloon_bomb
Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu-Go_balloon_bomb
The problem with Loon was that there weren't enough of them, and weather patterns would inevitably cause a clumping of them in certain areas of the world where they would be useless. Tethered balloons at 100k' / 30km would be more useful for comms.
There's no tether material nearly strong enough to withstand the forces from wind and the tether's own weight and drag at 30km altitude - plus 15km additional length for lateral drift.
There's a concept in engineering called "Reißlänge" (≈ breaking length), which is how long a cable of a certain material can be before it would rip due to its own weight if suspended by one end [0].
The values for some materials are actually much higher than I remembered, with Kevlar reaching ~250 km. From a purely hold-its-own-weight perspective it seems like it might actually be possible!
Obviously there's a ton of other problems that wouldn't make it feasible, the first I can think of is the weight of a 50 km tether wouldn't allow the balloon to even take off. I'm sure you can think of another million reasons it wouldn't work.
[0]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rei%C3%9Fl%C3%A4nge
The values for some materials are actually much higher than I remembered, with Kevlar reaching ~250 km. From a purely hold-its-own-weight perspective it seems like it might actually be possible!
Obviously there's a ton of other problems that wouldn't make it feasible, the first I can think of is the weight of a 50 km tether wouldn't allow the balloon to even take off. I'm sure you can think of another million reasons it wouldn't work.
[0]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rei%C3%9Fl%C3%A4nge
That's interesting and surprisingly long for Kevlar.
The highest altitude recorded by a single kite is less than 5km. I understand the biggest constraint for higher flights is tether strength-to-weight ratio. Nylon is typically used - fishing line.
Tether diameter is another factor as the load from wind, on the tether alone, is considerable over such lengths.
The highest altitude recorded by a single kite is less than 5km. I understand the biggest constraint for higher flights is tether strength-to-weight ratio. Nylon is typically used - fishing line.
Tether diameter is another factor as the load from wind, on the tether alone, is considerable over such lengths.
Not to mention the incredible hazzard it would present to aircraft
It's a materials manufacturing to applications and lifecycle problem, not a technical one.
Graphene does 50 GPa in bulk. A single atom sheet of it does 10 MPa on its own.
Take 75 metric tonnes of cable / space elevator ribbon.
That expressed as tensile pressure at an attachment point(s) is conservatively 7.5 GPa over an area about 10 cm^2. With sensible engineering, the entire craft (a very large one) would possess a web of attachment points across its perimeter to distribute forces more-or-less evenly.
Graphene does 50 GPa in bulk. A single atom sheet of it does 10 MPa on its own.
Take 75 metric tonnes of cable / space elevator ribbon.
That expressed as tensile pressure at an attachment point(s) is conservatively 7.5 GPa over an area about 10 cm^2. With sensible engineering, the entire craft (a very large one) would possess a web of attachment points across its perimeter to distribute forces more-or-less evenly.
Dynema might work, the more tension it receives the stronger it gets
Project loon was super cool.
It's a shame that Richard DeVaul got caught up in a political moment and a pearl clutching media that was eager to misrepresent burning man in the most salacious way possible.
Richard co-founded loon and is one of the most brilliant people I've ever met.
Awful what happened to him. Google's collective IQ dropped precipitously when he left.
It's a shame that Richard DeVaul got caught up in a political moment and a pearl clutching media that was eager to misrepresent burning man in the most salacious way possible.
Richard co-founded loon and is one of the most brilliant people I've ever met.
Awful what happened to him. Google's collective IQ dropped precipitously when he left.
1. The guy sexually propositioned a woman in an interview.
2. Seriously, do we need more? He's not stupid, he took the same management harassment training as everyone else in the company, he should have known better, he did know better, and he fessed up to it.
When you're a director, your reporting chain is not your personal Tinder. Please inform yourself on the subject of illegal sexual harassment in the United States, you'll save yourself and your reports and HR a lot of trouble.
2. Seriously, do we need more? He's not stupid, he took the same management harassment training as everyone else in the company, he should have known better, he did know better, and he fessed up to it.
When you're a director, your reporting chain is not your personal Tinder. Please inform yourself on the subject of illegal sexual harassment in the United States, you'll save yourself and your reports and HR a lot of trouble.
The offending interaction occurred after the interview at burning man. He did not sexually proposition anyone in the interview. Furthermore the allegations were made two years after the supposed incidents occurred, the more distant an event is in our memory the more I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the possibility of people's accounts drifting from the truth.
The issue is whether Simpson was denied before or after burning man. If it was before, which is apparently what Devaul was insisting, it really was inappropriate to take any action in my opinion. If you match on tinder with someone you once interviewed, after the hire/no hurry decision is made, then your company shouldn't be treating this relationship any different from a total stranger. Or are we supposed to keep spreadsheets of every person we ever interviewed? Because that's not in my sexual harassment training, I dunno about yours.
Think about how you would defend yourself if someone accused you of making a sexual advance in an interview after you rejected them for a job? If testimony alone is enough to get you fired, then that's a significant source of pressure to give female candidates positive outcomes even if their performance isn't up to par.
The issue is whether Simpson was denied before or after burning man. If it was before, which is apparently what Devaul was insisting, it really was inappropriate to take any action in my opinion. If you match on tinder with someone you once interviewed, after the hire/no hurry decision is made, then your company shouldn't be treating this relationship any different from a total stranger. Or are we supposed to keep spreadsheets of every person we ever interviewed? Because that's not in my sexual harassment training, I dunno about yours.
Think about how you would defend yourself if someone accused you of making a sexual advance in an interview after you rejected them for a job? If testimony alone is enough to get you fired, then that's a significant source of pressure to give female candidates positive outcomes even if their performance isn't up to par.
This aligns with how the situation was described to me, with the exception that he was actually trying to help her get a job at Google, but she was turned down by the hiring manager (not Richard) and was unhappy about it.
It was terrible timing given the other stuff that was going on with Google at the time, and he sort of got swept up in all that.
I do agree with Richard's statement that he had a lapse in judgement.
I think it's critically important to keep personal and professional life strictly separate, especially as an executive.
It was terrible timing given the other stuff that was going on with Google at the time, and he sort of got swept up in all that.
I do agree with Richard's statement that he had a lapse in judgement.
I think it's critically important to keep personal and professional life strictly separate, especially as an executive.
Telling someone you're poly and that they should come to burning man with you during an interview is the offending interaction.
It's a fucking interview, not a date. Unless you are hiring an escort, it is not the place to discuss your sex life.
It's a fucking interview, not a date. Unless you are hiring an escort, it is not the place to discuss your sex life.
You've been given more information multiple times on this thread.
There's another side to the story that's very different than your belligerent assertions.
Are you interested in learning, or just cursing and throwing unsupported accusations?
And no, he didn't "fess up to it" as you've said elsewhere. He admitted to an error in judgement, without going into details.
I don't know specifically what he meant by that, but it's possible that he meant his error in judgement was trying to help the wrong person, in the wrong context.
There's another side to the story that's very different than your belligerent assertions.
Are you interested in learning, or just cursing and throwing unsupported accusations?
And no, he didn't "fess up to it" as you've said elsewhere. He admitted to an error in judgement, without going into details.
I don't know specifically what he meant by that, but it's possible that he meant his error in judgement was trying to help the wrong person, in the wrong context.
Do you have evidence for this?
Because I was told a very different story. There's a lot more to it than what you may have read.
Perhaps you should consider reserving judgement until you have all the facts.
Consider for a moment that there may be important details and nuance that's missed by newspapers that are most interested in clicks.
Please inform yourself that accusations are not evidence, and maybe consider what you would feel if you were being judged by accusations alone.
I'm not at liberty to discuss the details, but I highly recommend you slow your rush to judgement. There's a lot about the whole situation that you are not aware of.
Because I was told a very different story. There's a lot more to it than what you may have read.
Perhaps you should consider reserving judgement until you have all the facts.
Consider for a moment that there may be important details and nuance that's missed by newspapers that are most interested in clicks.
Please inform yourself that accusations are not evidence, and maybe consider what you would feel if you were being judged by accusations alone.
I'm not at liberty to discuss the details, but I highly recommend you slow your rush to judgement. There's a lot about the whole situation that you are not aware of.
Richard??? Is that you??!!
No, I've met Richard and was impressed by him. I don't know him well, and haven't talked to him in years.
I did briefly discuss the whole situation with him after it happened, and came to understand that there was a lot more to the story than what was reported.
I do think he made an error in judgement.
I also believe he's utterly brilliant.
Both of those things can be true.
I did briefly discuss the whole situation with him after it happened, and came to understand that there was a lot more to the story than what was reported.
I do think he made an error in judgement.
I also believe he's utterly brilliant.
Both of those things can be true.
Even if the allegations were baseless, it would be hard to mourn someone at Google being set upon by the monster they helped to feed.
The balloon controls its own movement using only itself (and GPS) as a data source, right? Like, it's not receiving radio instructions from the ground?
Reminds me of this absolute stunning film about the japanese war balloons from WWII: https://archive.org/details/gov.archives.arc.13084
This allows "one button steering" as in the game rust
This is such an uncanny representation of an episode of Space Force it's hilarious.
Do unallied countries respect patents for military hardware?
Probably not, but also my personal experience says that you can't really replicate things just always from the patent. There's always some secret sauce to get things to work. The question is what exactly did Loon sell when they shut down and where did most of the people working on it end up? I know some folks at Loon and they went back to either Google Brain or some other moonshots in Google or Google Research but a lot of people didn't do that.
Lawyers who worked in chemical and medical patents confirmed this for me when I was in Google Legal. Don't even get me started about software patents.
The legal fiction is that a "reasonable amount of experimentation" may be required, beyond what's in the patent. The notion is that a lab tech determines the exact concentrations, temps, and pressure to get the thing to work.
Of course this is abused.
The legal fiction is that a "reasonable amount of experimentation" may be required, beyond what's in the patent. The notion is that a lab tech determines the exact concentrations, temps, and pressure to get the thing to work.
Of course this is abused.
If you need secret sauce to get things to work, you can have the patent invalidated.
Tell that to the pharmaceutical industry. Many pharmaceutical patents can't be reproduced without insider knowledge as discovered companies that entered the "generic" business.
https://dlj.law.duke.edu/article/patent-laws-reproducibility...
https://dlj.law.duke.edu/article/patent-laws-reproducibility...
You're very wrong about that.
What you're talking about is called a 112 rejection. Section 112 has to do with "written description," "enablement," and "best mode."
Getting a patent invalidated after it's issued can't be done on 112 grounds. It's done based on anticipation and obviousness (prior art, basically).
What you're talking about is called a 112 rejection. Section 112 has to do with "written description," "enablement," and "best mode."
Getting a patent invalidated after it's issued can't be done on 112 grounds. It's done based on anticipation and obviousness (prior art, basically).
I was referring to how things work in my non-US locale, unclear patent specifications are grounds for having a patent revoked.
Which country is that?
Why would anyone respect patents for military hardware? It's for war, where's the respect in that?
That was my point, he seemed to be suggesting something almost like espionage if the patents had been sold to someone in contact with China or something, but the patents are already public and I don't think would be respected for this application.
He could have argued they maybe should have originally been covered by https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_Secrecy_Act to begin with maybe.
He could have argued they maybe should have originally been covered by https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_Secrecy_Act to begin with maybe.
Many Chinese equipment does look like a copy of Western equipment. I don't think China respect patents at all. And I think even allied countries wouldn't respect patents with military applications if in their interest.
e.g. "How Turkey Defied the U.S. and Became a Killer Drone Power" https://theintercept.com/2019/05/14/turkey-second-drone-age/
e.g. "How Turkey Defied the U.S. and Became a Killer Drone Power" https://theintercept.com/2019/05/14/turkey-second-drone-age/
No-one respects patents for military purposes.
That's why important stuff is kept secret.
That's why important stuff is kept secret.
[deleted]
>some of their tech and patents were sold to SoftBank
Loon was shut down because Google stole the tech.
"In February of 2008, Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page visited Space Data’s headquarters with as many as 10 other Google executives in tow" https://www.wired.com/story/the-lawsuit-that-could-pop-alpha...
https://9to5google.com/2017/07/10/project-loon-patents/
https://www.law.com/therecorder/2019/07/29/google-settles-ip...
Loon was shut down because Google stole the tech.
"In February of 2008, Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page visited Space Data’s headquarters with as many as 10 other Google executives in tow" https://www.wired.com/story/the-lawsuit-that-could-pop-alpha...
https://9to5google.com/2017/07/10/project-loon-patents/
https://www.law.com/therecorder/2019/07/29/google-settles-ip...
I know people who worked at Loon. It certainly wasn't shut down because of the lawsuit. It was pretty much because of X's move fast approach and they didn't think Loon would make money anytime soon. They killed another one of my favorite projects for same reasons: https://x.company/projects/makani/
From the point of view of somebody who works in residential last mile internet service loon was always a pipe dream, because you'd need a truly absurd number of them to provide persistent packet-loss-free 24x7x365 coverage over a USA county sized area. Paying customers won't tolerate situations like "oh sorry the balloon has drifted away with the upper atmosphere winds, wait a few hours for maybe another one to be back in our region".
With various ground based data relays for aggregating traffic coming from the PtMP balloon-to-cpe radio links.
With advances in 600/700 MHz (and 2500 MHz band) based 3GPP rev-whatever tech for LTE-based last mile that can punch through trees, and starlink (and hopefully someday some viable non-spacex competitors for starlink), and other terrestrial WISP stuff, the need for something like loon is greatly decreased.
With various ground based data relays for aggregating traffic coming from the PtMP balloon-to-cpe radio links.
With advances in 600/700 MHz (and 2500 MHz band) based 3GPP rev-whatever tech for LTE-based last mile that can punch through trees, and starlink (and hopefully someday some viable non-spacex competitors for starlink), and other terrestrial WISP stuff, the need for something like loon is greatly decreased.
Yeah it didn't make a lot of sense in most of continental United States and maybe that's why most of Loon's initial deployment testing was in Africa with sparser terrestrial network. Starlink definitely changed the rules and made LEO based systems a viable alternative for sure.
I had funding lined up for an experiment with Loon to deliver bandwidth to hospital ships, and now work with another guy who was at X during that time. Their perspectives are similar: the logistics to make this work with any reliability is truly heroic (I'm not asking for 5 9s, one 7 would be a good start). The experiments they did were incredible. But as a reliable asset ... good luck.
Is it weird for me (a Chinese) to reply this?
I don't really think the three-buses-wide balloon is a good idea for spying since everybody (including the radar) can see it coming, but I imagine this will be quite effective for search and rescue support, battlefield surveillance and all the other short-term missions that could put such disposable flying electronics better good use.
If I remembered it correctly, China Mobile has tested a drone-based base station which can provide cell service over a short period of time, and they were using the system during a earthquake rescue with some success. Maybe using balloon is an better idea.
PS. Funny thing. I was planing to build and release a water probe since I live very close to the Yangtze river. Thought I can probably measure the water speed with the probe by letting it send back it's GPS position, plus some pretty pictures via cell/SMS. I haven't started the project though, due to many hurdles. One of them is to figure out what trouble I can get myself into after the probe encountered something it shouldn't have (because I have no control over it after release). I don't really want to have a chat with CIA, or even worse, the water police (yup, and they got jet boats).
I don't really think the three-buses-wide balloon is a good idea for spying since everybody (including the radar) can see it coming, but I imagine this will be quite effective for search and rescue support, battlefield surveillance and all the other short-term missions that could put such disposable flying electronics better good use.
If I remembered it correctly, China Mobile has tested a drone-based base station which can provide cell service over a short period of time, and they were using the system during a earthquake rescue with some success. Maybe using balloon is an better idea.
PS. Funny thing. I was planing to build and release a water probe since I live very close to the Yangtze river. Thought I can probably measure the water speed with the probe by letting it send back it's GPS position, plus some pretty pictures via cell/SMS. I haven't started the project though, due to many hurdles. One of them is to figure out what trouble I can get myself into after the probe encountered something it shouldn't have (because I have no control over it after release). I don't really want to have a chat with CIA, or even worse, the water police (yup, and they got jet boats).
The leading theory US intelligence has put forward is that this was done by mistake, which explains why they haven't shot it down yet. They're trying to draw out this bizarre and embarrassing situation as much as possible while simultaneously showing that they don't feel threatened by it.
If it's truly a mistake and I were tasked on handling this issue, I'll probably publicly notify the US about the the incoming balloon and tell them "feel free to shot it down before it reaches the US to prevent the balloon from causing any trouble".
The silence before the event went public tells me another story through.
The silence before the event went public tells me another story through.
Also because of upcoming talks between the US and China on easing Taiwan tensions.
These won't be off to a good start if they'd shoot down something Chinese now.
These won't be off to a good start if they'd shoot down something Chinese now.
They're already off to a bad start with the Chinese surveillance balloon hovering over the US in the first place. Incredibly awkward. This kind of thing is not normal. That's why it's front page news. Well within rights to shoot it down or render it inoperable.
It should be shot down if the Chinese won't be up front about what it is and why it's here and continue to deny that it's theirs.
It's in US airspace with no apology or intention by the Chinese to remove it. Shooting it down is totally reasonable
They’ve since admitted that this occurred 3 times during the Trump administration and once at the start of the Biden administration, but never disclosed it to the public. That makes the ‘accident’ theory impossible to believe.
It's a herring; a distraction signal for which the CCP can garner analysis of the United States decision response calculus. If US were to attack the balloon, it would set a jurisdictional precedent bringing into question many considerations of the disputed Taiwanese and South China Sea airspace, perhaps even geo-sync satellites.
Nobody's talking about the spy sats that are further up, balloon is just a caricature to drum up support for either side, humiliate one party, etc.
War never changes.
Nobody's talking about the spy sats that are further up, balloon is just a caricature to drum up support for either side, humiliate one party, etc.
War never changes.
thats basically what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loon_LLC was mostly for I think. its a really good idea though, and pretty cool technology.
I think it only makes sense for battlefield surveillance if its augmenting some small gap in existing ISR operations, combined with UAVs + satellites + whatever other aircraft. it definitely would not replace any of those aforementioned vehicles/technologies wholesale.
I think it only makes sense for battlefield surveillance if its augmenting some small gap in existing ISR operations, combined with UAVs + satellites + whatever other aircraft. it definitely would not replace any of those aforementioned vehicles/technologies wholesale.
PS. Funny thing.
Generally, when something like this becomes news, someone is trying to shift the Overton window.
Who wants this to be news and to what end are they manipulating collective perception?
I am so cynical so I respond the opposite way. Good for China, I applaud them for keeping tabs on a nation that routinely use drones in foreign skies to murder civilians.
Who wants this to be news and to what end are they manipulating collective perception?
I am so cynical so I respond the opposite way. Good for China, I applaud them for keeping tabs on a nation that routinely use drones in foreign skies to murder civilians.
This. Why do people suspect it's a spy balloon? No reasons are given in the article. Even if it did come from China, it could be nothing more than a mere scientific weather balloon. This smells like propaganda.
It's clearly not a Chinese spy balloon.
China has spy sattelites that can do what this balloon supposedly can, and that's why the US isn't shooting it down. What a load of crap. 1) the US would shoot it down anyway 2) why would China send a balloon when they have sattelites?
The conclusion drawn must be that it's either not Chinese, or not a spy balloon, or most probably not either.
China has spy sattelites that can do what this balloon supposedly can, and that's why the US isn't shooting it down. What a load of crap. 1) the US would shoot it down anyway 2) why would China send a balloon when they have sattelites?
The conclusion drawn must be that it's either not Chinese, or not a spy balloon, or most probably not either.
The US is working on their own spy balloon.[1] Why wouldn't China?
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/05/u-s-militarys-newes...
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/05/u-s-militarys-newes...
> China has spy satellites that can do what this balloon supposedly can,
Satellites have predictable orbits and are otherwise tracked, but a stealthy balloon might go unnoticed and manage to surveil sites that don’t mask their sensitive activities when they think the sky is currently clear. It’s possible that the ballon is performing signals intelligence gathering, or something else satellites at altitude can’t do.
Also, the perception (true or otherwise) that the US is not fully able to control its national airspace is something China can make propaganda out of.
Satellites have predictable orbits and are otherwise tracked, but a stealthy balloon might go unnoticed and manage to surveil sites that don’t mask their sensitive activities when they think the sky is currently clear. It’s possible that the ballon is performing signals intelligence gathering, or something else satellites at altitude can’t do.
Also, the perception (true or otherwise) that the US is not fully able to control its national airspace is something China can make propaganda out of.
Even the smallest high atmosphere balloon is gigantic.
There's simply no way one could ever be hidden from radar. So 'stealthy balloons' do not exist.
There's simply no way one could ever be hidden from radar. So 'stealthy balloons' do not exist.
That’s a bit emphatic, surely?
If you can make a B2 bomber stealthy then perhaps you can do the same with a balloon - the bags are thin polythene [1] and I assume you could combine geometry and radar absorbing material to make a payload disappear.
If it were that obviously visible why wasn’t it intercepted when it crossed into America’s air defence identification zone?
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/scientific-balloons/types-of-balloons
If you can make a B2 bomber stealthy then perhaps you can do the same with a balloon - the bags are thin polythene [1] and I assume you could combine geometry and radar absorbing material to make a payload disappear.
If it were that obviously visible why wasn’t it intercepted when it crossed into America’s air defence identification zone?
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/scientific-balloons/types-of-balloons
It's very clearly not stealthy, it's got solar panels hanging from it. I'm sure you could make a stealthy box, but this is not that.
If you don't know what your talking about it's usually more polite to admit it, instead of trying to double down.
That's one heck of a weather balloon.
https://archive.ph/DJgKa
https://archive.ph/DJgKa
Where is the "Chinese" part even coming from? Does it have a Chinese return label printed on it or is the balloon a rice-patty shape?!
Well it's highly likely they followed it's trajectory with satellites from launch to where it is now.
Technically, a scientific weather balloon could also be classified as spying on our weather conditions. :)
Those Chinese comrades have to be damn good engineers. They released spy balloon in China and magically fly over US. Just wow. Are they really controlling the weather?
According to Wikipedia, between 2000 and 5000 weather balloons are released daily. China's likely releasing hundreds of those. And there are reports of even regular helium balloons sometimes traveling thousands of miles.
It wouldn't be magical for one to accidentally end up basically anywhere.
It wouldn't be magical for one to accidentally end up basically anywhere.
Isn't that one particular balloon for spying?
You responded to a post saying
>Why do people suspect it's a spy balloon? No reasons are given in the article. Even if it did come from China, it could be nothing more than a mere scientific weather balloon. This smells like propaganda.
>Why do people suspect it's a spy balloon? No reasons are given in the article. Even if it did come from China, it could be nothing more than a mere scientific weather balloon. This smells like propaganda.
It's exhausting how literally every subject of public conversation is an op, isn't it? "The current thing", for any value of "current thing", just isn't worth devoting thought: whatever "the current thing" is, it's just bots and propaganda all the way down.
> whatever "the current thing" is, it's just bots and propaganda all the way down
Exactly. There is there is no true self under all the masks.
Exactly. There is there is no true self under all the masks.
In what world would this not be news?
This world. If you read the article, it is noted that this is a common occurrence:
> “Instances of this kind of balloon activity have been observed previously over the past several years,” Ryder said
Seems more like someone wanted to stir up some feelings.
> “Instances of this kind of balloon activity have been observed previously over the past several years,” Ryder said
Seems more like someone wanted to stir up some feelings.
common != it has happened before.
also note in the DOD press briefing they stated that this was markedly different than previous incursions due to primarily the duration of loitering.
also what are these comments..? openly lauding an adversarial state which is conducting flagrant surveillance operations in the continental united states? yikes.
also note in the DOD press briefing they stated that this was markedly different than previous incursions due to primarily the duration of loitering.
also what are these comments..? openly lauding an adversarial state which is conducting flagrant surveillance operations in the continental united states? yikes.
Not everybody here on HN is from US. Not everybody automatically likes that US can do whatever they want, wherever they want and its fine because dubious reasons at best, but as soon as anybody else does same its outrage, terrorists and other blahs that look frankly laughable to most folks outside US. TBH its mostly the opposite, world is fed up with that for past 20 years since it brought just tons of evil, death and fucked up whole regions for generations to come. Even most democratic and US aligned countries are fed up with that. Don't forget more than 95% of mankind doesn't live in US.
This is definitely one of those situations. If US can fly spy planes over say Russia or China, why shouldn't they be allowed the same? If you shoot their stuff, they can shoot yours. Fair game I say (not dragging current russian war in ukraine into this, to which I am strong opponent and even donated my own drone to AFU when it started).
This is definitely one of those situations. If US can fly spy planes over say Russia or China, why shouldn't they be allowed the same? If you shoot their stuff, they can shoot yours. Fair game I say (not dragging current russian war in ukraine into this, to which I am strong opponent and even donated my own drone to AFU when it started).
The world that doesn’t know history until the end of ww2 would be mad that the world has never been more peaceful to more people.
False extrapolation. No one is "lauding an adversarial state".
And adversarial to whom? The west is as adversarial to China as China is to the west.
You sound put off that the comments don't have enough patriotism. Lacking blind patriotism would in fact be called "neutral".
> common != it has happened before
It would be atypical to say "over the past several years" about a unique occurrence.
And adversarial to whom? The west is as adversarial to China as China is to the west.
You sound put off that the comments don't have enough patriotism. Lacking blind patriotism would in fact be called "neutral".
> common != it has happened before
It would be atypical to say "over the past several years" about a unique occurrence.
In a world where we have constant satellite coverage of the entire planet doing basically what we think this balloon might be doing.
And China has many satellites that are not in the news, but violating sovereign airspace Matters regardless of whether or not it materially matters.
Violating sovereign airspace matters to the US only when it's done to the US. Because to the US, the US is the only sovereign country in the world. All the others can and should get routinely violated by US planes, if you believe US media. So yeah, get out of here.
This is US news, in a U.S. newspaper, on a US site, in English.
I think sometimes people complain that something isn’t news it’s just US news, while they’re on US channels populated or run by US folks. And you know, what do you expect?
I think sometimes people complain that something isn’t news it’s just US news, while they’re on US channels populated or run by US folks. And you know, what do you expect?
That's not their point. The US routinely violates various nation's airspace. Hell, what do you think the odds are the US is currently violating Chinese airspace in some capacity? Depending on who's definition of Chinese airspace you use, it's pretty damn likely.
How does the statement "The US violates routinely sovereign airspace" make the point that "China violating US airspace" is not newsworthy? If China routinely violated sovereign (US) airspace it wouldn't be newsworthy!
> but violating sovereign airspace Matters regardless of whether or not it materially matters.
So it always matters, but it's frequency determines whether it's newsworthy? I don't understand that position.
So it always matters, but it's frequency determines whether it's newsworthy? I don't understand that position.
Are you saying you trust that China is keeping tabs on the US? In what way do you think they are and what is your mental model for deciding who to trust?
My mental model of trust is to not buy a car from a salesperson you like.
Normally, if you are feeling nice and secure, it is because someone has manipulated you to a place of vulnerability so they can take advantage of you.
This story wants me to feel like the US government is prudent, competent and observant. So, naturally, I am scared shitless.
Normally, if you are feeling nice and secure, it is because someone has manipulated you to a place of vulnerability so they can take advantage of you.
This story wants me to feel like the US government is prudent, competent and observant. So, naturally, I am scared shitless.
I wouldn't stop there I bet your friends are also out to get you. In fact everyone might be out to get you ;]
I am not OP, but I must express my belief that the world was a more harmonious and simpler place for the average person when the United States was not a dominant global power. The fear of communism, in fact, was probably one of the driving forces behind the creation of a thriving middle class in the US.
It is probably not a coincidence that since the fall of the Soviet Union, income and wealth disparities have only continued to escalate in the United States, painting a stark picture of the consequences of unchecked hegemonic power.
It is probably not a coincidence that since the fall of the Soviet Union, income and wealth disparities have only continued to escalate in the United States, painting a stark picture of the consequences of unchecked hegemonic power.
I mean of course china keeps tabs on the US. It's good to keep tabs on your investments.
> a nation that routinely use drones in foreign skies to murder civilians
That? The US flies aircraft across the borders of all targeted nations daily and violates their airspace. But the Anglosaxon media always only talks about how others are doing it, deceiving people to think that only 'others' do such things. Textbook example of lying by omission explained by Chomsky.
That? The US flies aircraft across the borders of all targeted nations daily and violates their airspace. But the Anglosaxon media always only talks about how others are doing it, deceiving people to think that only 'others' do such things. Textbook example of lying by omission explained by Chomsky.
>routinely use drones in foreign skies to murder civilians.
Why would you shift the overton window?
Why would you shift the overton window?
If repeating a fact shifts the Overton window, I think some reflection is in order.
You think it’s true that the US has weekly meetings where they decide which specific civilians to murder with drones?
The fact that they don't(as far as I know) have weekly meetings where they decide which civilians to murder with drones doesn't mean that they don't murder civilians with drones.
OP said regularly murdering civilians (intentionally targeting to kill, after meetings on who to target). No one is saying it hasn’t ever happened, but are there weekly/monthly meetings now?
Americans don't have much historical sense but I do. They used to fly spy planes right into USSR airspace- until Gary Powers got shot down.
Typical hypocrisy.
Typical hypocrisy.
China is not exactly pure as the driven snow. Glass houses.
Do you salute them for the way they treat Tibet and Uyghurs?
It's like all those "russians testing our airspace" propaganda a few years back. Everybody tests everyone's airspace. It's only when the elites want it to turn it into "news" that you hear about it. Then it's all forgotten.
It's just manufactured propaganda. The good thing about this is you can see how propaganda ( aka news/media ) coordinates with the pentagon/intelligence/etc.
It's just manufactured propaganda. The good thing about this is you can see how propaganda ( aka news/media ) coordinates with the pentagon/intelligence/etc.
https://www.flightradar24.com/2f0ea6cf.
The balloon isn't on there, and the (presumed) fighter jets that are escorting it aren't either but you can see the fuel tankers.
The balloon isn't on there, and the (presumed) fighter jets that are escorting it aren't either but you can see the fuel tankers.
I just went outside and watched the formation fly over. 4:35pst @ Coeur d'alene, ID.
How crazy...the future we live in.
How crazy...the future we live in.
Interesting, I see a fair number of French-named cities around Wisconsin but I didn't expect them as far west as Idaho.
Reminder that the capital of Idaho, Boise, is (apochraphally) named for the trees (les bois) that surround the Boise river. French made it quite a ways west, and definitely made it as far as Idaho.
The story goes Owyhee County is named after Hawaii. It's a county southwest of the Boise Area and home to the most beautiful wilderness I have ever seen. There is nothing like hiking mile after mile out there under the hot summer sun never seeing another living soul... But I digress. The story goes some Hawaiian goat herders entered the area to try their luck and were never to be seen again and hence the name. Owyhee = Hawaii
How true it is I do it know but it's what I've always been told.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owyhee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owyhee
French trappers. Supposedly the name means "heart of an awl" regarding the shrewd business practices of the local native tribes.
The annual rendevous was held in Idaho. There are quite a few French named things around the area. Lake Pend Orielle, etc.
Also, lots of stuff named after Lewis and Clark, the Jesuit priests and the Mullan trail.
The annual rendevous was held in Idaho. There are quite a few French named things around the area. Lake Pend Orielle, etc.
Also, lots of stuff named after Lewis and Clark, the Jesuit priests and the Mullan trail.
Maybe from French trappers?
And the Tetons in western Wyoming / eastern Idaho.
How do you escort a slow moving autonomous balloon? And why?
Seems like a waste of time when we could just shoot it down over an unpopulated area
Link says not found, and history pulls up no data. Anyone have a screenshot?
Can someone explain to me how is this any different from spy satellite? Yet nobody would think about shooting down spy satellite, yet you see in this thread people discussing shooting down a baloon, what's the difference between them? Does baloon provide better data than satellite? Isn't it just cheaper version of satellite with ability to provide same data?
edit: from CNN article:
"“Balloon payloads can now weigh less and so the balloons can be smaller, cheaper and easier to launch” than satellites, Layton said."
TLDR they are cheaper
"“An advantage of balloons is that they can be steered using onboard computers to take advantage of winds and they can go up and down to a limited degree. This means they can loiter to a limited extent.
“A satellite can’t loiter and so many are needed to criss-cross an area of interest to maintain surveillance,” he said."
TLDR they can loiter in place compared to satellite
edit: from CNN article:
"“Balloon payloads can now weigh less and so the balloons can be smaller, cheaper and easier to launch” than satellites, Layton said."
TLDR they are cheaper
"“An advantage of balloons is that they can be steered using onboard computers to take advantage of winds and they can go up and down to a limited degree. This means they can loiter to a limited extent.
“A satellite can’t loiter and so many are needed to criss-cross an area of interest to maintain surveillance,” he said."
TLDR they can loiter in place compared to satellite
the ISR payload tends to be massively less as well, with a balloon compared to a satellite, since balloon payloads need to be really small. they are basically an obsolete technology since the development of reconnaissance satellites, UAVs, etc, so I really doubt this is collecting much valuable intelligence. also shooting down satellites is definitely a sketchy area (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon) because of in-space collisions etc.
Main difference, a balloon can carry a payload that is capable of jamming rather than just surveilling radio signals.
Something not being talked about.
Something not being talked about.
>Can someone explain to me how is this any different from spy satellite?
A balloon can carry a weapon which could immediately have an impact if detonated at its current altitude (EMP, for example). A balloon can also descend to a lower altitude.
A balloon can carry a weapon which could immediately have an impact if detonated at its current altitude (EMP, for example). A balloon can also descend to a lower altitude.
Also interesting, although I believe the USA withdrew and china was never party:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies
You’re probably on the right track
The original is particularly bad for me. Goes strait to a pay form and hijacks my back button. I couldn’t figure out how to get out of it and had to close the site and reopen HN. I wish these sites were banned here and I need to finally get an extension or something to ban myself from clicking them.
Add the site to your deny list. Click link, see unavailable, smile.
I was with you until "smile"
Yeah it can be annoying depending on if the glass is half full or half empty YMMV. Myself I know such sites won't waste my bandwidth loading a script that won't really run if it doesn't get what it wants, I won't sit there for twenty or thirty seconds while some background thing pretends to do something, they (the site) won't get to scape the IP, not any stats that I was interested in whatever it was, nor get to reach for the cookie jar ... they don't win. There's usually more agreeable sites but not always. Despite that, it really puts a smile on my face.
Browsers ought to be able to do something about history hijacking. Maybe limits on history shenanigans across domains.
In Firefox, you just need to left-click and hold the back button to get a list that allows you to go back to any of several earlier pages. Pretty handy.
Occasionally even that hasn't saved me, but I suppose it's pretty close to the optimal UI. Maybe it just needs to partition the history entries by domain to defeat the sites that spam the hell out of your history.
This is the same in Brave (and I'd assume Chrome as well). You can also just right click on the back button.
Bigger issue isn’t the browser, your ISP can issue a deep cookie, you’ll have to VPN to get around that.
But a lot load balancers now fingerprint VPN addresses so that doesn’t work either
But a lot load balancers now fingerprint VPN addresses so that doesn’t work either
I think you're talking about a different problem. Here I'm not talking about tracking, just websites that hijack the back button.
You can right click your back button in your browser and a list will appear of recent history.
This is what I do when stupid, horny websites just refresh the current, stupid website rather than actually going back to where I was.
This is what I do when stupid, horny websites just refresh the current, stupid website rather than actually going back to where I was.
I don't know what's worse, the low information videos YT shovels on us or the low information articles with auto-play videos and horror bloat.
The "Bypass Paywalls" extension works for me. It's becoming necessary like Ublock Origin and a few others to make the web usable.
https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome/
(also for Firefox, which is the one I'm using)
https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome/
(also for Firefox, which is the one I'm using)
There is a newer version of the article with more content here: https://archive.is/L21Xb
(Tip: Keep clicking the next link / view the archive history to get to the latest snapshot)
(Tip: Keep clicking the next link / view the archive history to get to the latest snapshot)
US military was working on air balloons to use against China, and thought it "rise above competition": https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/05/u-s-militarys-newes...
Can someone explain why this is not being shot down immediately?
Other news sources have a lot more detail about this.
1. There's a high risk of debris falling on people on the ground.
2. Any sensitive information collected would have been sent home already, so shooting it now isn't going to do much good.
So Pentagon leadership recommended not taking "kinetic action". What's interesting is that they have been tracking it for several days over the US mainland. You'd think the strongest military in the world could do something other than...just watch.
1. There's a high risk of debris falling on people on the ground.
2. Any sensitive information collected would have been sent home already, so shooting it now isn't going to do much good.
So Pentagon leadership recommended not taking "kinetic action". What's interesting is that they have been tracking it for several days over the US mainland. You'd think the strongest military in the world could do something other than...just watch.
>You'd think the strongest military in the world could do something other than...just watch.
There’s an argument to be made that the strongest military in the world showing restraint and just watching is probably a good thing.
There’s an argument to be made that the strongest military in the world showing restraint and just watching is probably a good thing.
Nothing is more intimidating than an adversary who is intimidated by nothing.
The strongest military would have the capability of safely bringing down the problem. Watching it is no better than inaction.
Moved Iran and Afghanistan back a hundred years or more. Watches ballon and earns reputation as "restrained".
The US moved Iran — the country simultaneously providing cruise missiles to Russia and modern anti-tank missiles to forces in Yemen — back a few hundred years? The 1700s must have been wild.
Iran's history is quite an interesting one if you're not familiar with it. In the 1950s Iran was a relatively secular democracy. They had a mixed relationship with the West, but it was workable. When they discovered that the West was not fairly paying oil royalties as agreed upon, they moved to nationalize their oil.
This was unacceptable to the West, so we covertly overthrew their democracy and installed an unpopular autocratic monarch in 1953. This Monarch would then rule for the next 26 years until in 1979 they would have their own "real" revolution. It was largely led by Islamic extremists, and they replaced our puppet monarchy with an Islamic theocracy. And this theocracy not only has a pretty negative view of the West, but for some reason always thinks we're trying to engage in covert actions to try to overthrow them! Go figure.
1953 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat
1979 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
This was unacceptable to the West, so we covertly overthrew their democracy and installed an unpopular autocratic monarch in 1953. This Monarch would then rule for the next 26 years until in 1979 they would have their own "real" revolution. It was largely led by Islamic extremists, and they replaced our puppet monarchy with an Islamic theocracy. And this theocracy not only has a pretty negative view of the West, but for some reason always thinks we're trying to engage in covert actions to try to overthrow them! Go figure.
1953 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat
1979 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
Then a decade later the US gave Khomeini F-14s, which were the king of air dominance fighters at the time.
I’m not even suggesting this was good foreign policy, just that none of the above history proves the thesis that we set them back a few hundred years.
I’m not even suggesting this was good foreign policy, just that none of the above history proves the thesis that we set them back a few hundred years.
Iran's F-14s come from the Shah era, though the Reagan administration did secretly sell Iran spare parts during the 1980s, as part of a scheme to fund fascist militias in Central America without having to ask Congress for the money.
Your misquote of "a hundred years or more" as "a few hundred years" is a very careless thing to do.
You are are aware of the difference between the 1820s and 1920s I hope.
You are are aware of the difference between the 1820s and 1920s I hope.
Has Afghanistan moved in any direction? It cost a lot for little gain.
Iran wasn't touched, you may mean Iraq.
Iran wasn't touched, you may mean Iraq.
Iraq. Yes, I did. Thanks.
"Just watching" what they're calling a "surveillance" balloon continue to collect (somehow) information sounds unwise. That they watch it crossing the Atlantic onto U.S. territory seems especially asinine. It's as if we're more beholden to Disney shareholders than national security at this point, under the "Biden-Harris Administration".
Showing restraint against a controlled takedown of the balloon? Cant say I see the value in that.
[deleted]
> There's a high risk of debris falling on people on the ground.
That excuse seems really odd to me. Montana is the third-least densely populated state with 6.86 people per square mile of land.
That excuse seems really odd to me. Montana is the third-least densely populated state with 6.86 people per square mile of land.
It also has a lot of active nuclear ICBM silos.
https://www.malmstrom.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Ar...
https://www.malmstrom.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Ar...
You can go drive past them, even stop to use the porta-potty. (ok, maybe not recommended) I've antelope hunted over there a lot. (East of Harlowtown) and it is as empty as it gets in the contiguous US.
They could probably shoot it down without making much debris. And even if it made debris, at most it would hit a cow. The reality is it's not collecting anything of value.
They could probably shoot it down without making much debris. And even if it made debris, at most it would hit a cow. The reality is it's not collecting anything of value.
Yes, they are probably just counting silos under an informal agreement…
These have taken place numerous times
These have taken place numerous times
Are the silos even a secret anymore? With ubiquitous satellite coverage, I assume that anything even possibly a launch site is extensively monitored. To say nothing of traditional mechanisms of gathering intelligence.
There is an exhaustive list on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/341st_Missile_Wing_LGM-30_Minu...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/341st_Missile_Wing_LGM-30_Minu...
The risk of letting it sit up there is ~0.
It's like a fly sitting on the windshield of your car parked in the driveway or something. It's there, it might be annoying if you think about it, but it isn't actually doing any meaningful harm.
It's like a fly sitting on the windshield of your car parked in the driveway or something. It's there, it might be annoying if you think about it, but it isn't actually doing any meaningful harm.
If so, then why did China go to the trouble in the first place?
I dunno, why did they? I think if you are concerned about it and I'm not, you are probably the one that needs to explain.
Maybe they are planning to drop an insignificant number of small munitions on random locations in the US or something.
Maybe they are planning to drop an insignificant number of small munitions on random locations in the US or something.
"Letting it sit", the "it" being what they're calling a "surveillance" balloon, seems absurd. If we have an ongoing MITM attack, we need to stop the attack, not simply observe it like idiots.
Apart from the question why it wasn't shot down before entering airspace, sensitive information it collects is altitude wind patterns over missile sites and inability of administration to make a decision.
They mention in the article that the balloon only provides a marginal increase in surveillance capability when compared to LEO satellites. Considering the US pioneered a lot of satellite surveillance technology I imagine they have built everything accordingly since the 1960s and there's not much the Chinese can see from space or a balloon or I'm guessing even from a low flying Cessna.
> There's a high risk of debris falling on people on the ground.
In Western Montana? Rather doubtful. Just wait 5 minutes until it is over national forest land, which is the vast majority of the area, and then shoot it down.
In Western Montana? Rather doubtful. Just wait 5 minutes until it is over national forest land, which is the vast majority of the area, and then shoot it down.
There's definitely strength in saying "Your balloon is not a concern to us."
There's more strength in demonstrating "Hey, do you want this silly balloon back?" after retrieving it without incident at negligible effort/cost.
Which is not at all what is occurring. Having flight tracks of multiple refueling tankers demonstrates far more resources have already been expended on this "not a concern to us" than was spent on deploying it...
Which is not at all what is occurring. Having flight tracks of multiple refueling tankers demonstrates far more resources have already been expended on this "not a concern to us" than was spent on deploying it...
They could put Carrot Top and Andy Dick on it and send it back?
I understand why the State Department hyperventilates over "Chinese offensive capabilities" but no normal person ever needs to. China is not a threat to everyday Americans.
Sadly, it could also come off as "we won't do anything about it"
Less than surgically removing it with little effort.
Ten bucks says they've already taken non-kinetic action. Jamming, optical lasers, etc.
nope. why give away capability?
if there was any risk, it would be shot down. it it wasn't, it was probably observing wilderness/pastures
if there was any risk, it would be shot down. it it wasn't, it was probably observing wilderness/pastures
what's the point of capability if you're never going to use it. isn't this exactly what non-explosive weapons are made for?
i say we launch a balloon that parks itself below theirs blocking the view. no capabilities given up then
i say we launch a balloon that parks itself below theirs blocking the view. no capabilities given up then
We have a “consequences taxonomy” we only show our hand depending on level of threat
Some bean counters decided this was low threat. And, more likely, China told us it was coming, and probably to just count silos like we’ve been doing back and forth since the 70s
If it was spooky, it wouldn’t be bright white…
Some bean counters decided this was low threat. And, more likely, China told us it was coming, and probably to just count silos like we’ve been doing back and forth since the 70s
If it was spooky, it wouldn’t be bright white…
> probably to just count silos like we’ve been doing back and forth since the 70s
Pretty sure they've got satellites that can do that.
Pretty sure they've got satellites that can do that.
> what's the point of capability if you're never going to use it.
The point is to use them on a real danger. Accurate or not, the Pentagon clearly doesn’t see this ballon as a threat in any capacity. Why would they do anything other than keep an eye on it?
The point is to use them on a real danger. Accurate or not, the Pentagon clearly doesn’t see this ballon as a threat in any capacity. Why would they do anything other than keep an eye on it?
The military could shoot it down in less than an hour if it was a priority.
Maybe they did - gathering intelligence or probing for an exploit, etc.
I don't understand it here. If it's detrimental to national security shouldn't it be dealt with immediate action? I think it's a propaganda with a lot of self conflicted information.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Maybe they want to capture it intact (most likely).
Maybe they are doing signals intelligence on it.
Maybe it's a (fake) Chinese school project, and the world wide media will be like tomorrow "US gov shoots down Chinese little girl science project".
Maybe they are doing signals intelligence on it.
Maybe it's a (fake) Chinese school project, and the world wide media will be like tomorrow "US gov shoots down Chinese little girl science project".
>"US gov shoots down Chinese little girl science project"
"Cool balloon Mei, want to bring it to the White House?"
"Cool balloon Mei, want to bring it to the White House?"
And then they it turns out they just bought the balloon from like Alibaba and painted it or something?
I believe they are referencing Former President Barak Obama's tweet.
>Cool clock, Ahmed. Want to bring it to the White House? We should inspire more kids like you to like science. It's what makes America great.
https://twitter.com/POTUS44/status/644193755814342656
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/16/440890750...
>Cool clock, Ahmed. Want to bring it to the White House? We should inspire more kids like you to like science. It's what makes America great.
https://twitter.com/POTUS44/status/644193755814342656
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/16/440890750...
I just looked up the conclusion of that. So awful. His whole family ended up moving to Qatar because of harassment.
Moving to Qatar is a very common response to harassment and a failed lawsuit against local government for $15M
It’s quite likely that was an extension of the joke, the repurposing of a comercial off the shelf item that already does the job the young inventor set out to do.
A nice idea, but the size of three double decker buses??
A) it’s highly visible, probably on purpose
B) China has probably cut a deal to “count nuke sites” which is informally allowed in request during times of high nuclear tension
C) They most likely told us before hand it was going over
D) this is almost positively a big ol nothing burger, and some back channel deal with China to get them not to support Russia
B) China has probably cut a deal to “count nuke sites” which is informally allowed in request during times of high nuclear tension
C) They most likely told us before hand it was going over
D) this is almost positively a big ol nothing burger, and some back channel deal with China to get them not to support Russia
Can you explain a bit more? Why would this cause china not to support Russia? Why is counting nuke sites useful? Who’s allowed to request?
One reason is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies
Military intelligence gathering is so common that countries basically agree to not start a shooting war for overflying each others country gathering military intelligence.
If every military intelligence balloon, satellite, aircraft, drone, etc, was considered an act of war and destroyed, the world as we know it would have ended a long, long, long time ago, and none of us would be here having this conversation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies
Military intelligence gathering is so common that countries basically agree to not start a shooting war for overflying each others country gathering military intelligence.
If every military intelligence balloon, satellite, aircraft, drone, etc, was considered an act of war and destroyed, the world as we know it would have ended a long, long, long time ago, and none of us would be here having this conversation.
Official explanation is BS (danger to people in sparse rural Montana) so Im guessing they dont want to create a precedent for any of their own "projects" flying around the globe.
Right, escalation risk. Next step being a satellite shootdown.
Tons of US balloons are going over China every day. They don't shoot ours down.
do you have some evidence for that?
Source?
NWS weather balloons alone are about 100 balloons over China:
https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/radiosondes
Tons more in amateur radio etc., see APRS
https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/radiosondes
Tons more in amateur radio etc., see APRS
You don’t get much more info than from a modern satellite
This is interesting. https://twitter.com/faytuks/status/1621289387504836610?s=46&...
What if it was filled with some nasty biological agent?
[deleted]
I wonder how easy it would actually be to shoot down. Are rockets actually designed to track something like this? And do they have planes that can fly that high and shoot something so slow.
Also, the negative effects of a failed attempt to shoot down could be worse than the threat of the balloon. Both in terms of embarrassment and spent ordinance getting dropped.
Also, the negative effects of a failed attempt to shoot down could be worse than the threat of the balloon. Both in terms of embarrassment and spent ordinance getting dropped.
They are waiting for it to fly over Roswell.
For one, this converts it to a gravity weapon, which could hurt people or damage property.
There is also a risk of somehow triggering an unanticipated outcome due to e.g. unknown materials or chemicals on board.
There is also a risk of somehow triggering an unanticipated outcome due to e.g. unknown materials or chemicals on board.
Maybe they don't want the incident to balloon out of control.
Biden isn't capable of standing up to China.
Except for semiconductors and tariffs?
Also military expansion in the region (e.g. the Philippines base) and direct aid to Taiwan. The problem for hawks is what everyone sober is already aware of: there aren’t many ways to contain a nuclear power with a large advanced economy next to its borders which don’t quickly end up in a pretty dark scenario.
Not that China needs to be contained anyway. The only worldwide threat to national security is the country with 800 military bases worldwide and a hundreds-of-years-long history of invading someone every few years.
You’re overstating the case somewhat but there’s definitely merit to that point. I think it’s a trap though to assume there can only be one aggressor in the situation: China isn’t a global military power but it has been quite aggressive around its borders and the current actions against the Uighurs, Tibetans, etc. are on a scale reminiscent of 19th century American campaigns against the native inhabitants. If you live around the South China Sea you’re quite understandably going to be worried to an extent that someone in Africa is not.
Most of those "actions" are reported to us by our government, whose ability to report objective fact has not been demonstrated. To take Xinjiang, in particular: do a deep dive into the reporting and see where it comes from. You'll discover that it all boils down to a report by one guy, a fellow of the Victims of Communism org named Adrian Zenz. His report has been responded to in various places, and whether you take the responses at face value or not, they bring up good points worth investigation that call Zenz into very serious doubt.
That’s a serious citation needed on all points, starting with the claim that only the U.S. government is reporting that and we somehow collectively imagined all of the non-governmental and non-U.S. coverage. I note in particular that the “various places” phrasing makes it hard to know what you’re talking about or how you determined those sources are credible.
It's worth reading the response from a person in China. That's not to say you should believe it _more_, but that you should hear what the objections are and whether they make sense (and whether that critique calls into question anything else in the original report, which, by the way, you should also read http://english.scio.gov.cn/xinjiangfocus/2020-09/14/content_...).
That said, "non-governmental" and "non-U.S." coverage can be suprisingly illusory. Pay attention to the sources next time you see a Xinjiang story, whether in or out of the U.S., and report back if you find out that it ultimately sources someone other than Zenz (of course, make sure to do this recursively).
It's also worth pointing out that non-governmental organizations get their funding from somewhere, and, surprise, the places most critical of China tend to get their grants from sources that are ultimately government funds. The National Endowment for Democracy and Radio Free Asia are particularly infamous for distancing themselves from their government ties (Allen Weinstein, a founder of the former, famously said in a 1991 interview that "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.").
That said, "non-governmental" and "non-U.S." coverage can be suprisingly illusory. Pay attention to the sources next time you see a Xinjiang story, whether in or out of the U.S., and report back if you find out that it ultimately sources someone other than Zenz (of course, make sure to do this recursively).
It's also worth pointing out that non-governmental organizations get their funding from somewhere, and, surprise, the places most critical of China tend to get their grants from sources that are ultimately government funds. The National Endowment for Democracy and Radio Free Asia are particularly infamous for distancing themselves from their government ties (Allen Weinstein, a founder of the former, famously said in a 1991 interview that "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.").
China isn't also a cultural and territorial imperialist?
Not the way America is, no. China gives loans with minimal terms to build infrastructure, and has a record of forgiving the debts when they become unpayable. The US (via the IMF) lends money for infrastructure under terms that require concessions in government policy like "repealing wage laws" and "spending less on healthcare", and rarely discharges debt, instead lending out more money at worse interest with even more austerity concessions. If a government pops up thay doesn't like the terms, we coup them. China does nothing anything like that.
Not only shoot down, but then also shoot back please immediately. You guys never stop to amaze me.
The WSJ has more detail: https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-spy-balloon-seen-over-u...
According to a Pentagon source, the balloon offers "limited additive value" over satellites.
More interesting excerpts:
>The incident, which occurred in the last two days, marked the latest aggressive Chinese intelligence gathering maneuvers in recent years. U.S. defense officials said the balloon loitered over the U.S. longer than in previous similar incidents, which made this “different.”
<snip>
> Mr. Biden was presented with options and proposed that the high-altitude balloon be shot down after it was spotted and reported by civilians in a commercial airliner, U.S. officials said. The Pentagon feared civilian casualties, and opted not to shoot down the balloon, U.S. officials said.
<snip>
> The balloon “was traveling at an altitude well above the commercial air traffic and does not present a military or physical threat to people on the ground,” Gen. Ryder added.
<snip>
> The balloon was observed flying over Montana after flying over Canada and the Aleutian Islands, one U.S. official said. It was large enough for its debris to cause damage, and while the U.S. considered shooting it down over a sparsely populated area of Montana, the U.S. opted to not shoot it down. It also flew over sensitive sites, a senior defense official told reporters Thursday.
According to a Pentagon source, the balloon offers "limited additive value" over satellites.
More interesting excerpts:
>The incident, which occurred in the last two days, marked the latest aggressive Chinese intelligence gathering maneuvers in recent years. U.S. defense officials said the balloon loitered over the U.S. longer than in previous similar incidents, which made this “different.”
<snip>
> Mr. Biden was presented with options and proposed that the high-altitude balloon be shot down after it was spotted and reported by civilians in a commercial airliner, U.S. officials said. The Pentagon feared civilian casualties, and opted not to shoot down the balloon, U.S. officials said.
<snip>
> The balloon “was traveling at an altitude well above the commercial air traffic and does not present a military or physical threat to people on the ground,” Gen. Ryder added.
<snip>
> The balloon was observed flying over Montana after flying over Canada and the Aleutian Islands, one U.S. official said. It was large enough for its debris to cause damage, and while the U.S. considered shooting it down over a sparsely populated area of Montana, the U.S. opted to not shoot it down. It also flew over sensitive sites, a senior defense official told reporters Thursday.
> According to a Pentagon source, the balloon offers "limited additive value" over satellites.
Why wouldn't we prioritize simply acquiring the thing for analysis of what sort of optics and other capabilities they're floating through our air-space?
Who cares what "limited additive value" we presume it to have over satellites.
It's a huge psyops value, and a huge opportunity to demonstrate we can trivially acquire and reverse such items if they'd like to send us more of their state of the art surveillance gadgets to take apart.
By not doing so we imply that's not something we're capable of. Not a good look at all.
Why wouldn't we prioritize simply acquiring the thing for analysis of what sort of optics and other capabilities they're floating through our air-space?
Who cares what "limited additive value" we presume it to have over satellites.
It's a huge psyops value, and a huge opportunity to demonstrate we can trivially acquire and reverse such items if they'd like to send us more of their state of the art surveillance gadgets to take apart.
By not doing so we imply that's not something we're capable of. Not a good look at all.
I’d want a tax refund if someone has not been tasked with figuring out how to do a discreet nondestructive takedown for analysis.
I don’t think it’s trivial though. The slow speed makes use of aircraft tricky. The thing may have countermeasures, like a self-destruct mechanism for if it detects anything approaching it. Perhaps not an explosive self-destruct (flying explosives over a foreign country would be brazen indeed), but perhaps something electronic that scuttles the interesting equipment. And finally, perhaps the response to its presence is precisely what its owners have sent it to observe. An up-close streaming webcam view of a US Air Force operation surely has some value.
I don’t think it’s trivial though. The slow speed makes use of aircraft tricky. The thing may have countermeasures, like a self-destruct mechanism for if it detects anything approaching it. Perhaps not an explosive self-destruct (flying explosives over a foreign country would be brazen indeed), but perhaps something electronic that scuttles the interesting equipment. And finally, perhaps the response to its presence is precisely what its owners have sent it to observe. An up-close streaming webcam view of a US Air Force operation surely has some value.
> Why wouldn’t we prioritize simply acquiring the thing for analysis of what sort of optics and other capabilities they’re floating through our air-space?
One hypothesis: because we got high-resolution photographs of it, identified it, and we already have comprehensive intelligence and possibly one or more captured examples of the model, so we don’t expect there to be any particular intelligence value of getting another one.
> By not doing so we imply that’s not something we’re capable of.
Or not something we need to do.
One hypothesis: because we got high-resolution photographs of it, identified it, and we already have comprehensive intelligence and possibly one or more captured examples of the model, so we don’t expect there to be any particular intelligence value of getting another one.
> By not doing so we imply that’s not something we’re capable of.
Or not something we need to do.
>Why wouldn't we prioritize simply acquiring the thing for analysis of what sort of optics and other capabilities they're floating through our air-space?
Because there's a good chance America's three letter agencies have that figured out already anyway and the thing is technically ten years out of date.
Conducting some potentially risky and costly shootdown of a balloon over US territory seems out of proportion.
Because there's a good chance America's three letter agencies have that figured out already anyway and the thing is technically ten years out of date.
Conducting some potentially risky and costly shootdown of a balloon over US territory seems out of proportion.
> Because there's a good chance America's three letter agencies have that figured out already anyway and the thing is technically ten years out of date.
Scrambling F-22s to intercept something harmless we understand so deeply makes no sense.
> Conducting some potentially risky and costly shootdown of a balloon over US territory seems out of proportion.
I didn't say anything about shooting it down. But if that's the US's only option, it speaks volumes to how incapable we are of handling such a threat without undue risk to ourselves. Embarrassing if so.
Scrambling F-22s to intercept something harmless we understand so deeply makes no sense.
> Conducting some potentially risky and costly shootdown of a balloon over US territory seems out of proportion.
I didn't say anything about shooting it down. But if that's the US's only option, it speaks volumes to how incapable we are of handling such a threat without undue risk to ourselves. Embarrassing if so.
Or something we don't care to. "That is a cute toy you have."
Scrambling F22s and multiple stratotankers for refueling took that card off the table.
How did it do that? It demonstrated swift aerial response until a potential threat is assessed. Once assessed as not a threat, note the cuteness of the toy.
It's not possible to give it a slow enough leak that it comes down gently? A sufficiently large balloon is basically a parachute even if it's not inflated, right? It would be great to catch it and see what's inside...
I think that's the issue- bullet holes will only cause a small leak, and then the balloon will slowly descend in an unpredictable place (i.e., might blanket a small town)
I thought the Drive's article was pretty good including details of a Canadian flight to (presumably) check on the balloon as it went over the Okanagon roughly.
Similar balloons appear to have been photographed in Hawaii, India (Andamans), Japan. A different type was recently photographed over the Philippines and there is a comment about use over Guam.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/chinas-spy-balloon-ove... https://twitter.com/steffanwatkins/status/162136299808111001...
Similar balloons appear to have been photographed in Hawaii, India (Andamans), Japan. A different type was recently photographed over the Philippines and there is a comment about use over Guam.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/chinas-spy-balloon-ove... https://twitter.com/steffanwatkins/status/162136299808111001...
Any attempts to capture it? Is it flying too high for fixed wing aircraft?
[deleted]
Gun pod on a U2.
F15s can fly that high.
Heck, F-15s can shoot down satellites.
Seriously???
Back in the 1980s: https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/antisatellite-...
That project was cancelled after 5 tests, at least one successful. Since satellite destruction is a pretty interesting tactical option, what does that imply?
What it moved to SM Block 3 on the naval platforms.
Isn't that what that UAV space shuttle is for now, just to orbit around and muck up sats?
I don't think so. I don't know what altitude its at but I imagine aerodynamic control surfaces would not be that effective. F-22 would be better, which is what we deployed.
>According to a Pentagon source, the balloon offers "limited additive value" over satellites.
Uh... no?
Mainly because satellites are known -- black sites like Area 51 reguarly put away the "good stuff" when they known a spy satellite is overhead. That's not possible for random Chinese balloons we only find out about when some commercial pilot phones them in.
Uh... no?
Mainly because satellites are known -- black sites like Area 51 reguarly put away the "good stuff" when they known a spy satellite is overhead. That's not possible for random Chinese balloons we only find out about when some commercial pilot phones them in.
Legally, if I bring it down, can I keep it? What if I call the CIA and tell them "Hey, I spent $5K bringing it down, but I'll gladly sell you it for $10K"?
Shooting down an unmanned aircraft in skies where the FAA has jurisdiction (just about all in the US) is a felony equal to shooting a manned aircraft, even hobby drones. You might not want to alert them.
If you can get something to above 65k feet and conduct some sort of kinetic action against a small moving target for only 5k dollars I'm sure lots of us defense contractor UAV manufacturers would like to hire you or license your technology.
In the High power rocketry hobby, properly certified, $5k will get you high enough. Guidance is something else, I think you could do it, the knowledge is there and available. It would take many $5k test flights to get it working however.
There's a recent Veritasium video, where they were trying to demonstrate tungsten "rods from gods" space weapons by dropping heavy weights from a helicopter.
When they asked an expert about the aiming issue, the response was basically laughter and "I'm not going to solve the precision guided munitions problem for you because of legal reasons, and you're not going to be able to figure it out."
I expect precision guided rocketry is going to be a lot harder than a chunk of steel barely high enough to reach terminal velocity.
When they asked an expert about the aiming issue, the response was basically laughter and "I'm not going to solve the precision guided munitions problem for you because of legal reasons, and you're not going to be able to figure it out."
I expect precision guided rocketry is going to be a lot harder than a chunk of steel barely high enough to reach terminal velocity.
That Veritasium video is probably the worst video he ever produced. It was full of the most obvious mistakes possible along with a pointless hype. He probably felt forced to release it because he spent so much money on the failure.
AFAIK, in the US, precision guidance to a specific orientation on a amateur rocket is legal (i.e. active stabilization), but precision guidance to a specific location on a amateur rocket is indeed illegal.
AFAIK, in the US, precision guidance to a specific orientation on a amateur rocket is legal (i.e. active stabilization), but precision guidance to a specific location on a amateur rocket is indeed illegal.
Interesting. This was my take as well. I’ve been a fan of rods from god stuff for years, but his whole attempt to “recreate” was really lame. He explains physics stuff all the time, and then struggle with some simple engineering, just so they could create “suspense” around a helicopter drop. It was kinda surreal. I’m still scratching my head.
I'd go with the worst ones being one of the straight up commercials like the self driving cars one
It’s not really that hard to figure out, unfortunately. It gets trickier for moving targets… but it’s still not that hard. These days, the easiest way is just to use a neural network trained in a simulator. You don’t even have to understand the math or even fully grep the sensor/image processing. The methods used for conventional targeting systems are actually pretty well documented.
Hobbiests are already making self landing (spacex-style) model rockets. That is a much harder problem.
Hobbiests are already making self landing (spacex-style) model rockets. That is a much harder problem.
Entertainingly, mark Robert posted a video of him solving the precision guided missile problem, and realizing on talking to an expert in the field that that's what he'd been building
I think you're thinking of Mark Rober's recent 'egg drop from space' video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVZh5kqaFg&t=660s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVZh5kqaFg&t=660s
Ah, I think you're right.
Sufficiently advanced hobby grade model rocketry with guidance system and kinetic effect payload might start to resemble an ITAR controlled missile technology item (and/or something the ATF would be interested in for USA domestic destructive device and munitions laws).
There are people building missiles as a hobby? Sounds fun.
Guidance is a big no no because it’s bad for the whole hobby. We basically self govern so not to cause problems. People work on active vertical stabilization systems which is basically guidance for going straight up. No one attempts guidance to a specific destination because it’s a good way to put the whole hobby at risk. However, the skill and know how is there. People are putting passive stabilized rockets to 280k feet in black rock. A guy in Austin have active stabilization working above mach 1. It can be done within the hobby but no one wants to do it.
There are GPS guided model airplanes which are absolutely nothing like cruise missiles because they fly so much slower.
There are ducted fan model airplanes which are absolutely nothing like cruise missiles because they aren't GPS guided.
There are ducted fan model airplanes which are absolutely nothing like cruise missiles because they aren't GPS guided.
What's the best online venue/forum for one to read & learn more about this hobbyist scene?
An example of high altitude amateur flights. Granted this guy is more or less a legend in the hobby, definitely not the run of the mill.
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/project-mesos-a-two-st...
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/project-mesos-a-two-st...
The rocketry forum. Dot com.
That is really sad.
You can go see the most impressive ones launch at the annual BALLS event [1] in Blackrock desert several weeks after Burning Man.
The FAA closes off the airspace around the desert which allows the really powerful rockets to fly.
[1] http://www.tripolimn.org/events/balls/
The FAA closes off the airspace around the desert which allows the really powerful rockets to fly.
[1] http://www.tripolimn.org/events/balls/
This makes me wonder what else of interest occurs in that desert throughout the year? Is there anything preventing someone from just camping there year-round to enjoy the spectacles?
It's not that desert, but instead in a near by desert in Arizona: https://bigsandyshoot.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h3HAv9ra9Q
It's where all the private individual owners of the biggest military equipment you can buy in the US go to shoot their equipment that would be basically illegal to shoot anywhere else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R02emks3BoQ
I like this one where they shoot a ball turret from a bomber from a different year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_TaK0WZj2k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h3HAv9ra9Q
It's where all the private individual owners of the biggest military equipment you can buy in the US go to shoot their equipment that would be basically illegal to shoot anywhere else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R02emks3BoQ
I like this one where they shoot a ball turret from a bomber from a different year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_TaK0WZj2k
There are limits to how long you can camp in a single spot on public land, but no law against travelling around and camping in different areas as long as you want.
BLM will kick you off public land when pay to play permit holders show up.
You might be able to bring it down with a powerful enough laser, so a cheap weather balloon and a 50w laser plus a raspberry pi with adequate connectivity, four propellers for course correction, and some servos ought to do the trick for under 1000$.
I am no expert on the upper atmosphere but I think the wind speeds at those altitudes vastly outstrip the ability of anything with batteries and electric motors to adjust its course. The only way to change directions is to rise or fall into a differently moving stream of air current. This is how the Google project loon things were supposed to navigate?
Presumably both balloons are affected by the same air currents, right? So as long as you lift it up from the right spot it should be able to get within a few kilometers of the target, no?
Doubtful. It's more like trying to steer a ship. There are currents, but also a lot of noise/turbulence.
That's true, but it only needs to get within a few kilometers.
Didn’t some guy freefall from something like 100k ft or something to a specific landing zone. Remember seeing a red bull video of the event. How did he manage to avoid high altitude winds blowing him off course?
Think the name was Baumgartner or something like it.
Think the name was Baumgartner or something like it.
[deleted]
your laser doesn't need to do anything to the balloon and can be as weak as a laser pointer. just aim at the cameras and zap the sensors. assuming the ability to aim and hold would be achievable at this level. who cares if it's just floating there if it is blind?
“Just aim” seems to be understating the challenge of hitting a tiny target through multiple miles of atmosphere and holding the same position long enough to damage the sensor. The laser alone seems like it would blow that $5k budget by a handy margin — not much economy of scale at that power level.
With a portable generator, you can literally spend days aiming at the balloon. Eventually you're going to make contact with the sensors.
Yes, but damage is a function of power and time. If you can’t keep it on that a precise position you need to deliver far more power — there are links here to some research and they tend to be measured in seconds, which is a very aggressive target for something this far away through moving air.
https://www.ilda.com/camera-sensor-damage.htm
https://www.ilda.com/camera-sensor-damage.htm
i said assuming with caveat of "at this level"
edit, however, lasing a camera sensor doesn't need a lot of holding time. so just keep bouncing it around and hopefully, eventually you'll cover enough to render useless.
edit, however, lasing a camera sensor doesn't need a lot of holding time. so just keep bouncing it around and hopefully, eventually you'll cover enough to render useless.
Remember, I’m not saying it’s impossible - just a lot more expensive. I’m sure the U.S. military budget could include powerful lasers, precision sensors, and the software to keep focused on a small target at a long distance but I’d be surprised if it wasn’t at least two orders of magnitude more expensive.
And you power the laser with…?
A battery. A 50Wh battery should only weigh around 100g and would be able to power the laser for a good while.
No, you'll get arrested. Even if it's Chinese, you're not allowed to mess with it, only the gov is.
How about if it mysteriously, spontaneously fell down and you just retrieved it?
Normal private property like someone's quadcopter, I would assume the owner still has rights to it (and possibly liability depending on how/where it fell). But foreign government property that's not supposed to be there in the first place?
Normal private property like someone's quadcopter, I would assume the owner still has rights to it (and possibly liability depending on how/where it fell). But foreign government property that's not supposed to be there in the first place?
> How about if it mysteriously, spontaneously fell down and you just retrieved it?
Judges aren’t obligated to believe your bullshit.
Judges aren’t obligated to believe your bullshit.
except, the unbelievable thing would be that someone on the ground would have the ability to cause it spontaneously fall down. i'd hope the judge would put the larger burden of proof on the prosecutors here.
Curious how they know that it is chinese?
Or how they know it's a surveillance balloon as opposed to some kind of weather balloon. I guess you could say a weather balloon is still conducting a kind of surveillance.
They mentioned it was already common Chinese practice, it just that this one loitered longer and for days compared to other Chinese balloons.
Maybe it has a big China flag on it?
Opinion that I find to be usefull on this:
The surveillance balloons are very, very difficult to destroy, the aircraft's radar cannot see them, they fly almost in space at altitudes up to 25 km, they are painted in the color of the sky, or even transparent like jellyfish. Reflective surface is less than any of stealth planes. For any sane results, you need a dedicated aircraft with a special weapons set for destroying this thing. Missiles with a thermal homing head and special anti-aerostatic incendiary tracer shells, with a special fuse that is triggered when the thin shell of the balloon touches. This fuse is also triggered by raindrops, so it's better not to shoot them in the rain. Rockets, on the other hand, capture the heated sunny side of the balloon with their clever thermal head. Secondly, as a rule, one hit is not enough(due to the cell structure of balloon). Balloon doesn't give a fuck about shell holes, it will slowly descend to where it needs to go for thousands of kilometers dropping ballast more often. And by the way, he can also bang on a lucky hit and take the plane with him.
Nonsense, they have been tracking this thing since before it hit US airspace, through Alaska and Canada, they know exactly where it is and can take it out at any time they want.
The Pentagon doesn't wand competition over here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgon_Stare
What can be done with a balloon that a satellite cannot?
Some ideas, brainstorming here...
Tracking: satellites are incredibly easy to track once you know their orbital parameters. A balloon, far less so. You need a lot of active tracking.
Altitude: a balloon is much closer to the ground than a satellite. That allows a much smaller camera to take the same picture. It also could give you access to radio signals that might not be as easily monitored from space.
Harder to spot: being closer to the ground, it will be beyond the horizon until it's much closer.
And of course it's far, far cheaper. The Chinese space program is doing well, but it's still very expensive to build and launch satellites.
There are of course numerous downsides.
Tracking: satellites are incredibly easy to track once you know their orbital parameters. A balloon, far less so. You need a lot of active tracking.
Altitude: a balloon is much closer to the ground than a satellite. That allows a much smaller camera to take the same picture. It also could give you access to radio signals that might not be as easily monitored from space.
Harder to spot: being closer to the ground, it will be beyond the horizon until it's much closer.
And of course it's far, far cheaper. The Chinese space program is doing well, but it's still very expensive to build and launch satellites.
There are of course numerous downsides.
I wonder what kinds of capabilities you could have in a $25,000 mass produced balloon. 100,000 of those would only cost $2.5 billion. It seems like that would be a pretty overwhelming problem to deal with if your job was to suddenly get rid of 100,000 balloons.
I've played that game. You need monkeys with darts.
Additionally
Measure Response: Determine what an adversary nation does in response to the violation (what resources are scrambled, where do they come from etc)
Messaging: All the permutations of two sets of government folks trying to send a message the pair mutually understand re: defense etc
Tie up resources: Low cost provocation may divert higher cost resources and tie them up for a longer period of time since its a dwelling threat
Acquire signal information: Use sensors and measurement systems outside of the threat to measure the locations and signatures of tracking systems deployed to assess and monitor the threat
Deploy lightweight physical payloads: dust something of interest over an area etc
Measure Response: Determine what an adversary nation does in response to the violation (what resources are scrambled, where do they come from etc)
Messaging: All the permutations of two sets of government folks trying to send a message the pair mutually understand re: defense etc
Tie up resources: Low cost provocation may divert higher cost resources and tie them up for a longer period of time since its a dwelling threat
Acquire signal information: Use sensors and measurement systems outside of the threat to measure the locations and signatures of tracking systems deployed to assess and monitor the threat
Deploy lightweight physical payloads: dust something of interest over an area etc
Verify operations when space becomes a denied environment due to debris field...
(edit to add: i.e. field test planned comms and sensors platforms for use in future conflict scenarios)
(edit to add: i.e. field test planned comms and sensors platforms for use in future conflict scenarios)
A sufficiently large balloon with enough payload capacity (and some method of data link back to its operators) would probably be more useful for SIGINT and rf spectrum data gathering, assuming it has directional antennas aimed at whatever is directly underneath it. Same capability in a LEO satellite weighing 500kg+ might be very costly to launch.
Probably some sensors to see what we’re doing with our nuke bases in Montana.
Or an airplane, or a drone flown out of a parking lot nearby, or frankly even a google maps photo. I agree, the threat here seems sorta vague and silly. Aerial reconnaissance over industrialized democracies is a pretty wide open threat model. If we have stuff sitting out in the back yards we should throw a tarp on it or something.
AliExpress delivery drone. I'm expecting my $2 ESP32 boards any time now.
Optically, you are limited by angular resolution, so less distance means better resolution on the ground.
Probably costs a few order of magnitudes less.
Provocation
not be obscured by clouds
Clouds are much lower altitude than this balloon.
Yes, this high altitude balloon is above the clouds. I was answering what can be done with a balloon.
So after decades of so called reforms & IP theft, the best thing the CCP can do is to fly some ballon over the US when the US is building the B-21? Sounds like a stone age economy to me.
If that is the case, well, at least you know that the China threat stories by your favourite media outlets deserve a truck load of salt.
If that is the case, well, at least you know that the China threat stories by your favourite media outlets deserve a truck load of salt.
what about all the cheap web cams that stream live back to china?
are they being looked into?
are they being looked into?
Yeah, there are sites where these are being looked into. I'm not sure its the same thing you mean, but you can bet there are plenty of eager guys out there making sure these cams aren't going to waste.
Is this a thing? Where?
Not exactly what OP is talking about, but Hikvision CCTVs are cheap so everyone buys them: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-banned-chinese-camera...
I'm guessing its a reference to shodan.io
Amazon
How many trillions in national defense and the way they handle this problem is with a press release?
Yeah that doesn't smell in the slightest.
And how exactly do they know it's Chinese?
What if it was like WW2 and the balloons were carrying bombs? What's the national defense plan for that?
We definitely have high altitude drones.
Yeah that doesn't smell in the slightest.
And how exactly do they know it's Chinese?
What if it was like WW2 and the balloons were carrying bombs? What's the national defense plan for that?
We definitely have high altitude drones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu-Go_balloon_bomb
Japanese balloon bombs from WWII
Japanese balloon bombs from WWII
The only CONUS civilian deaths of WWII.
FT article provides further insight: https://archive.ph/iT2zX
- The official added the surveillance balloon “does not create significant” opportunities for China to gather intelligence beyond other methods such as low orbit satellites.
- The US has observed similar activity over the past several years, including during the administration of Donald Trump. Unlike previous years the balloon “is appearing to hang out for a longer period of time this time around”, the defence official said.
- The official added the surveillance balloon “does not create significant” opportunities for China to gather intelligence beyond other methods such as low orbit satellites.
- The US has observed similar activity over the past several years, including during the administration of Donald Trump. Unlike previous years the balloon “is appearing to hang out for a longer period of time this time around”, the defence official said.
What would China do if a USA surveillance balloon appeared in their skies? Exactly. You watching Taiwan?
Little reminder: Some 20 years ago a US surveillance stealth plane/bomber crashed in China. They didn't start any shit...
This definitely feels like a response to the situation unfolding in the Philippines to me, but I am just your casual armchair political power enjoyer.
I remember in Civ when I sent my Spearman across the border to spy on the enemy's tanks and aircraft.
Everyone knows fortified Spearmen guarding a mountain pass are impervious to everything but nukes.
I'm still salty about loosing Jet Fighters to Musketeers in Civ I.
There are no secret surveillance balloons. This must be an alien craft. It's covered in strange markings... :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mogul
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mogul
USAF circling with several aircraft: https://twitter.com/UpwardNewsHQ/status/1621290179519545346
Three tankers? Exactly how many jets did they send to need that many refuelers
I wonder if a balloon would violate airspace rules. Or just be a hazard for flights.
Realistically, there's spy satellites anyway, the ballon seems more of a power move. Precisely because it's visible
Realistically, there's spy satellites anyway, the ballon seems more of a power move. Precisely because it's visible
First time seeing this news thought it was a joke but turns out it's not. A few questions:
1. is it possible for a balloon to fly over pacific to U.S?
2. why we notice it after it has been at mid US? I think we could identify it starting from the west coast?
3. what makes it to be a Chinese balloon? I mean it could be from other country, right?
I tried to search answer but not finding useful information so far
I tried to search answer but not finding useful information so far
[deleted]
ABC has a good writeup on this without the paywall / advertising: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-03/china-spy-balloon-see...
When it’s spotted over the pentagon, or over a military base - how deliberate can that be? By that I mean how much control do you have over a balloon’s trajectory when launched from the other side of the world?
[deleted]
What exactly are the laws here? I know Russia does overflights frequently.
[deleted]
How do they know it's Chinese? Does it say in large letters "Made in China" ?
Can they Fulton skyhook it down?
Heaven forbid someone flies outdated spy technology over another superpower. checks decade oh wait no I'm thinking of the US flying U-2's. Carry on.
edit: wow, lots of folks apparently unfamiliar with the 1960's U-2 incident eh? Time to brush up on military aviation history.
edit: wow, lots of folks apparently unfamiliar with the 1960's U-2 incident eh? Time to brush up on military aviation history.
You are allowed to spy on other countries only as long as you are really good at it. Sending a random weather balloon to fly over another country definitely doesn't cut it.
The real crime isn't spying but getting caught.
The real crime isn't spying but getting caught.
Heck, it's not even a crime, it's just an airspace violation at best.
By that logic random murders are also not crimes until you get caught.
I think you just passed the CIA entrance exam. Please report to langley at your earliest convenience.
You're going to actually have to explain what logic you think you're talking about here in order for that claim to stick. Because no, not even remotely.
Well spying is a crime in most countries so saying that it is not a crime until it's detected is just wrong. My point was that crimes are still crimes even if they are not detected.
Spying on a country, in that country, for another country, is absolutely a crime, not ambiguity there. And spying using satellites, many hundreds of miles above controlled airspace, is not a crime - it's not even considered spying. In between those two you get high altitude spying using surveillance aircraft or balloons. It really does fall in this weird "not a crime until detected" grey area.
The U2 is an amazing piece of technology. The amount of times it's been gutted and retrofitted is crazy. 67 years and counting; sure don't make them like they use to. Even the global hawk can't match its capability 1:1.
I remember seeing that thing in a museum in Moscow back when I was a kid :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident
> The U2 is an amazing piece of technology. The amount of times it's been gutted and retrofitted is crazy. 67 years and counting; sure don't make them like they use to. Even the global hawk can't match its capability 1:1.
If the U2 is amazing, which superlative is appropriate for the SR-71?
If the U2 is amazing, which superlative is appropriate for the SR-71?
Unbelievable. Supernatural. Godlike.
But unfortunately not cost effective.
But unfortunately not cost effective.
The Chinese and Russians are free to shoot down an SR-71 or U2 over their airspace. Problem is that's much easier said than done.
Shooting down a balloon over US airspace, or better yet, grabbing it, should be a no-brainer. It's our airspace. Why is this being discussed? Get that thing on that ground, keep it, and study it.
Shooting down a balloon over US airspace, or better yet, grabbing it, should be a no-brainer. It's our airspace. Why is this being discussed? Get that thing on that ground, keep it, and study it.
No one is free to shoot down an SR-71, because nothing you fire at an SR-71 will ever reach it. They're free to point at it, though.
Re-read my first sentence. They are absolutely free to.
No one's free to violate the laws of physics.
[deleted]
I hope it didn't drop bad stuff, like a nuke.
[deleted]
They spied on the croissants prices...
how can it by a spy balloon when the balloon material is white and reflective AF?
off topic but some of the paragraphs sound like they ve been written by chatGPT
That's no moon...
Has the US lost all sense of sovereignty?
The U.S. has too big of a dick (please excuse my crude euphemism) to care about pissing contests. If the balloon was truly a threat you better believe we would've shot it down.
What exactly did the Chinese learn from this? Feels like a misguided shit test. There will be a proportionate response.
What exactly did the Chinese learn from this? Feels like a misguided shit test. There will be a proportionate response.
Isn't Montana sparsely populated? If the Air Force can't shoot it down there good luck trying to do so over New England.
Dropping the next virus?
Our country warned about China few decades ago but USA was in denial. Terrible days are ahead for the west. Good luck guys
It's fascinating getting a glimpse into modern tensions. It turns out that there was a guy that shot down like 8 MiG's back in the 40's, but they had to suppress all knowledge of it so that it didn't escalate anything between US and Russia. Makes you wonder how often stuff like this happens and we just never hear about it. https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/20/asia/korean-war-fighter-pilot...
> like 8 MiG's
"four Soviet MiGs" (from the linked headline)
> back in the 40's
"On a cold November day in 1952" (linked article, paragraph 2)
> a guy
"Royce Williams" (linked article, literally the first two words), Navy Cross recipient and former US Navy pilot, not 'some guy'.
What kind of hasty carelessness causes you to share a link to a story, embellish it with details, but just screw up on key facts? Including, I might add, the rather significant difference in implication between a US pilot shooting down MiGs in the 1940s, when the Soviet Union was either an ally or a peacetime enemy, vs. the 1950s, when the Korean War happened.
"four Soviet MiGs" (from the linked headline)
> back in the 40's
"On a cold November day in 1952" (linked article, paragraph 2)
> a guy
"Royce Williams" (linked article, literally the first two words), Navy Cross recipient and former US Navy pilot, not 'some guy'.
What kind of hasty carelessness causes you to share a link to a story, embellish it with details, but just screw up on key facts? Including, I might add, the rather significant difference in implication between a US pilot shooting down MiGs in the 1940s, when the Soviet Union was either an ally or a peacetime enemy, vs. the 1950s, when the Korean War happened.
Ok, I'll be more careful.
The answer is "I just woke up."
The answer is "I just woke up."
It was 70-80 years ago and you were off by about 2 years. Inconsequential.
It makes zero difference to the meat of the story exactly how man Migs were shot down. The precise number is not the story.
You didn't say 'some guy' you said 'a guy', which has a different connotation.
But getting this stuff wrong takes more effort than just copying the actual facts from the article you are providing a link to!
And just referring to a person who is named and credentialed in the article as 'a guy' just seems like throwing a layer of extra carelessness on top.
I just can't fathom how someone accomplishes this.
If there's one thing I try to encourage people to do in online discourse in general, it's to recognize that you don't have to guess. You have time to go look up the facts. Things are knowable, you don't have to vaguely gesture in the direction of the truth.
And in this case the op had the source right there! They must have googled up the link and opened the page and copied the URL! The facts were right there, in the next tab!
And just referring to a person who is named and credentialed in the article as 'a guy' just seems like throwing a layer of extra carelessness on top.
I just can't fathom how someone accomplishes this.
If there's one thing I try to encourage people to do in online discourse in general, it's to recognize that you don't have to guess. You have time to go look up the facts. Things are knowable, you don't have to vaguely gesture in the direction of the truth.
And in this case the op had the source right there! They must have googled up the link and opened the page and copied the URL! The facts were right there, in the next tab!
>I just can't fathom how someone accomplishes this.
Person wakes up and browses interesting stories, remembers semi-relevant story, decides to comment about the similarity and forgets specifics. Realizes right before posting "oh shit I have to cite my sources or else pedants will ratio me into being unable to participate in other conversations" and quickly searches for a recent link that mostly backs up their commentary. Does not think to fact check every detail. Backfires.
Person wakes up and browses interesting stories, remembers semi-relevant story, decides to comment about the similarity and forgets specifics. Realizes right before posting "oh shit I have to cite my sources or else pedants will ratio me into being unable to participate in other conversations" and quickly searches for a recent link that mostly backs up their commentary. Does not think to fact check every detail. Backfires.
This is exactly right, down to the last detail. Impressive.
Three years make all the difference. 1949 would rogue pilot almost causing a war. 1952 is pilot bravely saving lives and being covered up so didn't expand war.
The numbers matter too. Shooting down MIGs happened all the time. Dogfighting seven solo and shooting down four is a huge thing.
The numbers matter too. Shooting down MIGs happened all the time. Dogfighting seven solo and shooting down four is a huge thing.
If an American was shooting down Migs during WW2 and not during the Korean War, it totally makes sense why the Americans would want to keep it quiet.
2000 and 2002 were just two years apart, inconsequential [to world politics and the state of the world].
2018 and 2020 were just two years apart, and no significant difference in the world economy or health indicators took place across the interval. (/not)
Hum... Was 2001 so long ago that people already forgot it happened?
The GP is saying the same thing as you.
The GP is saying the same thing as you.
I suspect the HN cohort increasingly has people not born then.
I had a mortgage during the 17-27% interest years of the eighties. I think about that when people kibbitz about inflation these days.
I had a mortgage during the 17-27% interest years of the eighties. I think about that when people kibbitz about inflation these days.
It was during the Korean war, in the active warzone, and the Russian pilots were flying North Korean planes. It's a pretty important point, because this is dramatically different to a US pilot randomly shooting down Migs over Europe in 1949 and that being suppressed!
yeah 1940s lol... US and USSR were allies then. This is not Historian News.
"From Stettin in the Baltic, to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the continent"
That was 1946 and the start of the cold war
That was 1946 and the start of the cold war
And if the US had started shooting down MiGs in the next couple of years after that the cold war would not have remained cold very long.
If you want to get particular, the Berlin Blockade/Airlift was in the 40s. The Cold War started in the late 40s.
This was my first thought as well. I'm kind of surprised the media is making such a big deal out of this. I would assume, considering how cheap it is to make a stratospheric balloon, it is either fairly common and the US has an equivalent program or its completely inferior to satellites.
The technology is pretty mature, Google ran a whole fleet of them with Project Loon back in 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loon_LLC
The technology is pretty mature, Google ran a whole fleet of them with Project Loon back in 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loon_LLC
> The technology is pretty mature
Luckily with balloons, if you're just going for "somewhere over there" and you have reliable currents at steady elevations then you don't need to worry much about that. So yes the hardware and telemetry is mature.
Accurate navigation of such balloons however was never viable, which is why Alphabet shut down Loon two years ago. Navigation is achieved by inflating and deflating the balloon to rise or lower to catch favorable winds. But the navigational planning algorithms were never good enough.
Luckily with balloons, if you're just going for "somewhere over there" and you have reliable currents at steady elevations then you don't need to worry much about that. So yes the hardware and telemetry is mature.
Accurate navigation of such balloons however was never viable, which is why Alphabet shut down Loon two years ago. Navigation is achieved by inflating and deflating the balloon to rise or lower to catch favorable winds. But the navigational planning algorithms were never good enough.
Wasn't one theory about Roswell that it was some kind of test balloon with crash test dummies? Something about testing for radiation in the upper atmosphere back before everyone and their brother knew how to make a gun style nuclear device?
(Nowadays any idiot with some uranium could make a suitcase nuke, LMAO)
(Nowadays any idiot with some uranium could make a suitcase nuke, LMAO)