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

U.S. military shoots down suspected Chinese surveillance balloon

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: U.S. military shoots down suspected Chinese surveillance balloon

#821

Post by inglor_cz »

13of40 wrote: post #565
404mm wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yah I believe that. But all the electronics will be shorted and likely damaged by salty water, which is conducive.

It seems like the electronics should be in an enclosure to protect them from the extreme cold, low air pressure, radiation, etc. they would encounter at 60,000 feet. Whether that would survive the fall is a different question.

"from the extreme cold, low air pressure, radiation"

That is a different threat than saltwater and huge pressure (even in relatively shallow waters, the pressure at the bottom will be massively bigger than ambient atmospheric pressure).

If I had to bet, I would expect stratospheric devices to crack like eggs in such conditions, unless they were specially developed to be both stratospheric and underwater.

Re: U.S. military shoots down suspected Chinese surveillance balloon

#823

Post by isubkhankulov »

MoSattler wrote: post #819
user3939382 wrote: post #814

[flagged]

So you think the neocons are conspiring with CNBC?

most news agencies blindly repeat what the local/state/federal government tells them. There’s very little primary research on stories like this.

Re: U.S. military shoots down suspected Chinese surveillance balloon

#824

Post by threeseed »

user3939382 wrote: post #814

[flagged]

You do know that ordinary people saw both the balloon and it being shot down.

And the US government doesn't need ridiculous tactics like this to shore up support for protecting Taiwan.

It is pretty much the only thing that almost every member of Congress supports.

Re: U.S. military shoots down suspected Chinese surveillance balloon

#825

Post by ddalex »

jacquesm wrote: post #744
bitcurious wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you believe the Chinese officials, they had lost control of the balloon. Things that go up must famously go down, though that's not their department said Wernher Von Braun.

It's a bit strange how they are simultaneously upset that their balloon got shot down and claiming they had lost control of it.

The "upset" part is a defensive attack, they expect to avoid rebuffs of violating airspace by being very upset in the first place.

Re: U.S. military shoots down suspected Chinese surveillance balloon

#826

Post by Tor3 »

theteapot wrote: post #808
WalterBright wrote: post #794

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The balloon moves with the wind. You cannot steer it because from the point of view of the balloon it is not moving . There is no keel on a balloon. Without a keel, one is only going downwind.

Wind is still flowing over the balloon and able to generate a steering force.

No, as Walter said, it's moving with the wind, i.e. it has the same speed as the wind. It's only if there's a sudden gust that you would see anything flowing over the balloon. I took part in a balloon experiment a couple of years back, essentially a weather balloon with several cameras, including one pointing upwards - we could watch (after we retrieved the cameras later) hours with footage of the balloon itself. There were various loose threads etc, and I assure you - there wasn't much movement! Occasionally there would be a little gust, when that happened the payload would swing around a little bit, but for the most part it was very quiet. Particularly at the highest altitudes.

Re: U.S. military shoots down suspected Chinese surveillance balloon

#827

Post by threeseed »

isubkhankulov wrote: post #823
MoSattler wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think the neocons are conspiring with CNBC?

most news agencies blindly repeat what the local/state/federal government tells them. There’s very little primary research on stories like this.

Don't forget all of the international news agencies and people who took video on their phones.

They are all in on the conspiracy as well.

Re: U.S. military shoots down suspected Chinese surveillance balloon

#828

Post by MoSattler »

isubkhankulov wrote: post #823
MoSattler wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think the neocons are conspiring with CNBC?

most news agencies blindly repeat what the local/state/federal government tells them. There’s very little primary research on stories like this.

Even if that is true.

I cannot really follow the argument that this would mean CNBC is conspiring with neocons to do a "Ukraine 2.0" in Taiwan. These kinds of claims require more evidence.

Re: U.S. military shoots down suspected Chinese surveillance balloon

#829

Post by iforgotpassword »

Justin_K wrote: post #785
pageandrew wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its very possible that they could jam the radio frequencies the balloon uses. "Hacking the comms link", not so much, but neutering its ability to phone home... very possible.

Ya what if it uses cellular on a US sim? Are you going to jam all the cell spectrums?

Oh snap right, a US three letter agency telling a US mobile carrier to disable a US SIM sounds like an impossible feat. Well played, China!

Re: U.S. military shoots down suspected Chinese surveillance balloon

#830

Post by Tor3 »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #750
rjsw wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concorde did [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde

An aircraft that last flew decades ago is not relevant here. The comment you replied to says "no commercial aircraft flies at that altitude" and the concorde hasn't flown in decades.

Well.. November 2003, so only after that can you claim "decades", plural.. it's a while yes, but clearly shows that at least it's in the realm of commercial aircraft, and may happen again, in principle.

Edit: By the way, that comment said, and I quote, "Name one plane that flies at more than 60,000 feet, I'll wait."

No word "commercial" there. So, aside from the Concorde, there were/are several others, some already mentioned.

Post reply on HN