Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Military shoots down another high-altitude object, over Lake Huron: officials

abcnews.go.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 593 posts

Re: Military shoots down another high-altitude object, over Lake Huron: officials

#411

Post by hnthrowaway0315 »

oneoff786 wrote: post #151
akmarinov wrote: post #11

Have aliens invaded and we just don’t know about it, the government holding them off lowkey? Edit: Now China’s shooting them down! https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/02/12/china-says...

People need to understand that if you’re being attacked by a FTL capable alien invader, you are so incredibly f**ed that it just does not matter. People don’t write popular sci fi novels about realistic alien invasions because they would be so utterly one sided and brief that it simply wouldn’t make a good story.

It doesn't have to be FTL capable after the crash. Just imagine, you with a rifle, an armor, a good sword and some grenades went back in time to say 20K yrs ago, for sure you are like God to the primitives for a moment but whence you exhausted the resources it's done business.

Same thing for aliens, imagine an alien refugee ship capable of FTL but needs a special fuel that it has to collect from deep Earth ocean very slowly, perhaps for a few million years because Earth only has very very few of such fuel. There is not much the refugees can do. They don't have weapons, they still habe to gather food and energy, they can't do a lot of bad things to locals (us)

Re: Military shoots down another high-altitude object, over Lake Huron: officials

#412

Post by throw_nbvc1234 »

htag wrote: post #374
throw_nbvc1234 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't have a large enough LEO constellation you will have sporadic and predictable coverage. This is especially true if you want global coverage to monitor a military like the USA with a global presence.

1. Wouldn't these balloons provide even more sporadic coverage? They seem to be detectable. 2. These gaps would be measured in minutes, and are zero when you considered the combined coverage of all none-nato countries. Anything that we don't want seen is done under cover.

2. If you can scramble a jet within mins, that may be all you need. If you consider that LEO internet projects like SpaceX and Kuiper are targeting 5-10k sats to cover the earth i don't think it's a given that "all non-nato countries" have enough to provide constant coverage, especially if you go back 5-10 years. That probably won't be true in another 5-10 years.

1. Some reports say that they've only been detected recently; referencing multiple undetected occurrences during the Trump presidency; o they've been working for X years already. If they're undetected, they can view into gaps referenced above. If this program has been going on for 5-10 years undetected then it still could have been of value to China/Russia/Whoever owns them.

Re: Military shoots down another high-altitude object, over Lake Huron: officials

#413

Post by willis936 »

janoc wrote: post #111
throwawaycities wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which means also we can expect a lot more false positives. Perhaps we can, but clearly we can expect to find actual UAVs corresponding to these radar signals. If these UAVs that have been shot down were domestic research balloons or some other aircraft exempt from FAA regulation, then we can expect a party to come forward and publicly acknowledge ownership/control of the UAV. However, based on the descriptions of t…

>and not domestic weather/research balloons ... Keep in mind that not only US or Canada launches weather balloons. These things are well capable of flying huge distances, including across the oceans. There has been one launched by amateur radio operators a few years ago that has circumnavigated the globe - and that's not at all a rare feat. See e.g.: https://qrp-labs.com/circumnavigators.html So no need to go all con…

Of course those balloons enter airspace with the permission of the sovereign state. If no permission is sought and granted then it's fair game for the sovereign state to do whatever they please with them.

It is not a tinfoil hat theory to point out that a balloon that is not playing by weather balloon rules is not a weather balloon. Route planning hasn't suddenly gotten more difficult in the past week.

https://youtu.be/P43wVDiZs8k

Re: Military shoots down another high-altitude object, over Lake Huron: officials

#414

Post by willis936 »

c3534l wrote: post #377
yalogin wrote: post #290

Do we have international agreement about what constitutes sovereign space in the sky and what doesn’t? I mean at what height does it make it not okay to shoot down an object another country sent up? Is it at the height of the low orbit satellites? Should it be out of the earth’s gravitational pull? Or can China shoot down one of US’ low orbit satellites saying it flew over its airspace?

China killed one of our spy satellites with a ground-based laser. I think a good rule of thumb is if we can shoot it down, its trespassing.

Are you sure they haven't only tested/demonstrated that capability? I haven't heard of an actual satellite warfare incident yet. That would be a very huge deal.

Re: Military shoots down another high-altitude object, over Lake Huron: officials

#415

Post by nobody9999 »

lyu07282 wrote: post #271
prawn wrote: post #231

If an agitator puts up a balloon and payload, one of which contains a potentially dangerous substance, and a nation in question shoots it down, thus releasing and activating that substance, who is responsible? And who does the public deem responsible? (I don't think this is realistic, just musing about other schemes that could be going on.)

Like floating a warhead over the US mainland? It would just count as a first strike regardless I imagine. The bigger question to think about is the fear itself that led you to this question, the fear, the vulnerability and the anxiety you are feeling. Perhaps if americans weren't so frightened all the time there would be less wars?

>The bigger question to think about is the fear itself that led you to this question, the fear, the vulnerability and the anxiety you are feeling. Perhaps if americans weren't so frightened all the time there would be less wars?

I'm not sure what anxiety it is that you're talking about.

As an American, I'm not anxious or afraid "all the time." In fact, I'm generally relaxed and happy.

Sure, some folks have anxiety issues. But that's not limited to Americans, is it?

While more people in developed countries are prescribed anti-anxiety meds[0] than elsewhere, such folks are a small fraction (~5%) of the global population.

And so I'll ask you, of what exactly, do you think that Americans are "so frightened all the time?"

Listening to politicians blather on about "keeping Americans safe" and the like, which is pure theater that's designed to generate votes, is a poor idea if you want to understand how Americans actually think and feel.

These recent shoot downs are an excellent example. No one complained when similar balloons flew over the US before. Why? Because our military deemed them not to be a threat. And no one cared.

The Chinese surveillance balloon was deemed not to be a threat (as was alluded to in this week's public briefing of Congress) and even when it passed over "sensitive installations," countermeasures were put in place to mitigate any intelligence gathering.

That one group made a big deal about it (even though when this happened previously, they were (in closed session) briefed on the matter, and the public was none the wiser.

The difference now is that the public is aware of this stuff and rather than focusing on maintaining and strengthening national security, some folks are attempting to use this to win political points.

Shooting down the Chinese balloon was probably a good idea in order to better understand Chinese technology in this space, and knowing what the Chinese wanted to look at gives us even more information.

As such, jamming/restricting encrypted comms/camouflaging such sites (again as was alluded to by DoD representatives in an open committee hearing, with promises of more detail about that in closed session) and then taking the vehicle down in an area where civilians aren't at risk was smart.

Shooting down those other objects was a direct response (and serves the same purpose) to the political posturing about the Chinese balloon. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

[0] https://www.ihealthcareanalyst.com/global-anxiety-disorders-...

Re: Military shoots down another high-altitude object, over Lake Huron: officials

#416

Post by nonethewiser »

hoppyhoppy2 wrote: post #263
ianburrell wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've stopped trusting when politician tweets describe the objects. They are getting the details second-hand if not more and seem to be relaying it immediately. Press conferences at least have some time to collect accounts and organize them. We also don't know who is providing the details; I would trust the F-22 pilot. Like this could mean that there was only octagonal object, the balloon was octagonal, or the payload…

CNN is reporting: >The object was shaped like an octagon with strings hanging off it and no discernible payload, according to [a senior administration official] and another source briefed on the matter. https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/object-shot-down-lake...

Sounds like it dropped its payload

Re: Military shoots down another high-altitude object, over Lake Huron: officials

#417

Post by Rury »

erentz wrote: post #3

Couple of interesting twitter threads on this from Tyler (The Drive). He suggests this has been coming/happening for some time. https://twitter.com/aviation_intel/status/162414986417840128... Also that we are seeing a lot more now because we have turned down/off the filters on the radars. Which means also we can expect a lot more false positives. https://twitter.com/aviation_intel/status/162461466198661120...

Seems like an interesting problem to deal with, and one which will only get tougher as our skies get more populated with things.

Re: Military shoots down another high-altitude object, over Lake Huron: officials

#418

Post by nonethewiser »

prawn wrote: post #227
cududa wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t it a little TOO convenient that no civilians were out on Lake Huron in the middle of winter under the objects flight path to take a picture? (/s, if that was necessary to clarify)

Is there a chance that this is a low-effort and low-risk way for China/whoever to further stir up drama in the US? "Where's the proof?" "They're making this up. I haven't seen a photo of the balloon..."

People don’t doubt the balloon exists though

Re: Military shoots down another high-altitude object, over Lake Huron: officials

#419

Post by piloto_ciego »

idlewords wrote: post #398
kiddz wrote: post #363

It seems like the reporting is that two out of three objects are said not to be balloons. I don’t know of any terrestrial technology that can be that large (size of car) aloft for multiple hours/days that hovers. Am I correctly groking the news here?

No, you're not. The descriptions are consistent with these objects being balloons or dirugibles. The terrestrial technology that can keep a cylinder the size of a car afloat for days is called "hydrogen".

I don’t think this is correct… a thousand cubic feet of hydrogen is 68lbs of buoyancy at sea level.

A cylinder that was 20’ long, and 5’ in radius (which is a lot bigger than my minivan - would be about 1570 cubic feet.

That could lift about 100lbs at sea level… at flight level 400… that’s going to have to be a huge balloon to lift 100 lbs or the payload has to be tiny tiny - which is possible but I don’t think something the size of a car is adequate.

Re: Military shoots down another high-altitude object, over Lake Huron: officials

#420

Post by eitland »

consp wrote: post #222
Kon-Peki wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Commercially available radar reflectors are frequently found as a sailboat supply item Wooden and fiberglass boats are fairly invisible to radar, even with metal masts and rigging. If you are ever planning to head out into the ocean and near where you might expect commercial shipping, these are a cheap safety item for making your boat visible.

If you attempt to go near larger commercial shipping lanes you are required to have them at least were I live, they are not optional here. Also get the right size, some smaller ones are useless (so I've been told).

I think the standard for marine radars on oil installations around here (norsok) was to be able to detect a large steel target at 25 nm.

It is now 8 years since I worked with it last time and 1000m2 sounds very large to me but that is the only number that pops into my head.

So yes, if you are in a small boat, use a radar reflector and also be alert.

Post reply on HN