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

481–490 of 593 posts

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

#481

Post by poooogles »

ihatepython wrote: post #466
esperent wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you be more specific? I'm from a country that people would consider part of "The West". However we've never attacked anyone except invaders in entire country's history. I'm sure you could dredge up some connection to the US and get angry with us about it, if you were an Islamic extremist or something. More realistically though, you could find fault with any country with that attitude. Speaking of current geopolit…

[flagged]

>Everything the mainstream media says is a lie.

You've lost credibility completely with this sentence. While I'd agree that many news outlets have their biases, some hugely so, saying everything they say is a lie is just categorically wrong.

Many news outlets like Reuters and the PA have business models based around factual reporting for others.

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

#482

Post by reso »

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?

I wouldn't make any conclusions yet given that they haven't recovered the wreckage yet.

That being said, ultralight glider technology is actually really good. It is plausible with ultralight materials you could build a car-sized thing, put it on some kind of solar-powered glider and keep it in the air for a long time.

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

#483

Post by cleandreams »

King-Aaron wrote: post #297

So my thoughts: 1. Are we just seeing more of these things now, due to the US broadening the scope of their radar filtering, and there were always this number of things floating around and now they're just more aware of them? 2. Has something changed in the upper atmosphere/jet stream that's catching balloons that would have previously blown elsewhere, and are now going over the US by accident? 3. Is some really big…

I read recently that the fact the US military didn't want to stoke public interest with 'UFO's' meant that lots of things that were unidentified went unreported and ignored. This actually became a security risk that other countries could take advantage of. That may have happened here.

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

#484

Post by reso »

First time I heard about these objects I thought about this presentation for Google Loon, and all the research around high-altitude gliders that has taken place in recent decades. https://www.slideshare.net/Funk98/highaltitude-solar-glider-...

A high altitude glider being repurposed for surveillance seems like a plausible explanation for all this.

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

#485

Post by ShredKazoo »

nl wrote: post #459
ShredKazoo wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting to me that this has become such a common internet talking point. A while ago, I finished reading a history of the UN (the one by Stanley Meisler), and I definitely got the impression that the founders of the UN wanted it to be more than just a forum. E.g. here are some passages I hilighted from Chapter 1: "Americans could envision the Soviet Union joining the United States in policing the peace in th…

> It's interesting to me that this has become such a common internet talking point. A while ago, I finished reading a history of the UN (the one by Stanley Meisler), and I definitely got the impression that the founders of the UN wanted it to be more than just a forum. It's worth thinking about this context when considering the Korean War when it was UNC (UN Command) that was the primary defense force: https://www.un…

Exactly, and that's not even that unusual in terms of the 20th century, e.g. I believe Desert Storm was officially a UN force as well. The book discusses a lot of examples of people talking about sending UN troops somewhere and that either happening or not happening (and often, it happened!)

I think it is maybe only after the Iraq War that people stopped thinking of the UN as an alternative to conventional war politics. IIRC, Bush acted unilaterally without UN approval, and now it kinda seems like the "you should get UN approval before making war" norm has been lost? I don't remember anyone even discussing the possibility of UN approval for any more recent US military actions like in Libya. And the UN hasn't played a large role in Ukraine either -- I suppose that might be because Russia is on the security council?

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

#486

Post by ihatepython »

poooogles wrote: post #481
ihatepython wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>Everything the mainstream media says is a lie. You've lost credibility completely with this sentence. While I'd agree that many news outlets have their biases, some hugely so, saying everything they say is a lie is just categorically wrong. Many news outlets like Reuters and the PA have business models based around factual reporting for others.

[flagged]

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

#487

Post by ImHereToVote »

aftbit wrote: post #352
ImHereToVote wrote: post #194

What do you mean the eastern part of the US has just had a Phosphene release causing potentially millions of cancer deaths in the years to come? Look aliens!!!!!!!

I think you might mean phosgene?

I did at that. Thank you.

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

#488

Post by golol »

dismalpedigree wrote: post #396
PeterisP wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink is in a completely different class of "tons of satellites" as other platforms simply due to the SpaceX launch vehicles. China has a total of 600-ish satellites together for all purposes. Starlink has 3500-ish right now, and the already licensed plans are for 12000 by 2026. When(if!) Starship starts launching satellites, a single launch can put in orbit more military satellites than China has ever launched, a…

I predict a Chinese version of Starship within 18 months of a successful launch. The Chinese industrial espionage machine is unmatched.

You underestimate how incredibly difficult the work that SpaceX is doing is. No spaceflight oraganization in the world is close to having the capabilities that SpaceX has right now (Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy). Meanwhile Starship is almost ready.

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

#489

Post by implements »

r00fus wrote: post #77
lost_tourist wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know what sets it off? Seems like it wouldn't be from impact as these balloon materials couldn't be comparable to say hitting another plane, right?

These payloads are duds - all you need to do is to pierce the balloon.

‘Duds’ is an odd way of putting it. Sidewinders usually have an ‘exploding ring of metal rod’ warhead, I believe - and that was replaced by something else better suited to destroying the balloon while leaving the payload intact enough for technical analysis.

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

#490

Post by AareyBaba »

arwineap wrote: post #446
localplume wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surveillance satellites are very different to directly flying this equipment into US airspace, including the fact that this equipment could hold paylods other than ISR. Not to mention this comment implies China does not have equivalent spy satellites, which it does. Also the UN is an absolute joke. That article links has China and Russia complaining about the West being aggressors so honestly its kinda BS. Also forge…

I'm failing to understand how balloons are different from satellites, save for altitude; those sats could be carrying payloads other than ISR as well.

Balloons can loiter over a location.
Post reply on HN