331–340 of 526 posts
Please stop using a $400k missile to shoot down a $300 party favor. Certainly we could have a kid wave a high powered laser out of a window of a Cessna 172 for 1/10 of the price
Please stop using a $400k missile to shoot down a $300 party favor. Certainly we could have a kid wave a high powered laser out of a window of a Cessna 172 for 1/10 of the price
I was curious about part of the description given by the pilots who shot down the object off the coast of Alaska. It was described as being at about 40000' altitude (12192 m) and moving about 40 mph (64 kph) with no visible means of propulsion. To me, that implies that it was drifting in the wind at that altitude since it had no visible means of propulsion. I took a look at Ventusky (ventusky.com) to try to get an id…
“ Another official from the Department of Defense told the New York Times that the object broke into pieces when it hit the frozen sea” - Guardian article on the Alaska downing How could a balloon break into pieces? Doesn’t it need to be made of flexible material? Edit: WSJ is now reporting unnamed sources confirmed Alaska was a metallic balloon w suspended payload.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could be they thought it was a balloon originally hence the immediate press conference, but now they've received conflicting accounts from the pilots (some reported experiencing sensor interference for example) so they're not sure what they are anymore. Apparently the Alaska object shattered upon impact against the ice. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/02/pentagon-shoots-down...
I know this is Hollywood magic thinking, but in the the spirit of no dumb questions, for an object like this, are there no capture devices besides just letting it crash?
https://www.space.com/281-sky-capture-nasa-bring-genesis-ear...
However, that was a known harmless object on a known trajectory versus an unknown and possibly hostile object.
Additionally, helicopters can't fly nearly high enough for these. 25,000 feet vs 40,000+ feet.
Does anyone else think these have been happening a long time but now they make front paper news because of recent activities?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which media ?
Ex, for this one: https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/norad-shoots-down-unidentified... for the last one: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/spy-balloon-canada-norad-ques...
> Should Canada have acted when it flew into Canadian airspace?
> The short answer, according to military experts, is no.
> "To say that, oh, Canada should have shot this balloon down on its own — that's just silly," said University of Calgary history professor and military historian David Bercuson.
> "That just completely ignores the fact that NORAD exists that we're part of it and have been part of it for almost 80 years now."
And yes, it also says this:
> The operating altitude of Canada's CF-18 Hornet fighter jets is 50,000 feet (15,000 metres), while Pentagon press secretary Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said the balloon had been flying at about 60,000 feet (18,000 metres) — potentially out of range for those jets.
However that ignores the fact that the F22 that shot down the balloon did so from 40,000 feet. Using a similar missile, a CF-18 certainly could have done the same.
UFOs are just spy drones with sensor jammers and detectors that are designed to look strange and unnerving to pilots so they will scope them out. Pilots are trained NOT to go by them or engage with them for fear of secrets leaking.
- Size
- Shape (considering that mission profile)
- Movement characteristics
- General capabilities
- Access to nearby air traffic
- Tech being exposed _to_ pilots, e.g. flight envelope capabilities; inter-media transitional capabilities
This is the hand-wave problem with UFOs/UAPs.
Once you start into details, they're really not a single _thing_ anymore by any rational definition.
And this more flexible POV also takes into account the possibility that some _are_ spy drones.