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

941–950 of 1001 posts

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

#941

Post by Kim_Bruning »

angry_octet wrote: post #609
sandworm101 wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When an aircraft doesnt have a transponder, doesnt respond to radio calls, no flight plan on file, and seems to be adrift, it is a hazard to navigation irrespective of altitide. Such things get intercepted and, if in any way dangerous, are shot down. Post-9/11, there are even protocols for shooting down unresponsive airliners.

Name one plane that flies at more than 60,000 feet, I'll wait.

Possibly apocryphal SR-71 story ;-)

SR-71: "QQ requesting clearance to flight level 600"

ATC: "QQ, climb and maintain flight level 600... if you can get there."

SR-71: "Roger, descending to flight level 600"

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

#942

Post by anonu »

kzrdude wrote: post #916
torpfactory wrote: post #900

The big question is why China would send a balloon. My best guess is it carried electronic warfare sensors to try and collect specific information about US radar and missile capabilities. They may have in fact wanted us to shoot it down, ideally first painting it with advanced radar (both air and ground based) and then firing an advanced missile at it. Data could be streamed out until the moment of impact and used to…

I'm not sure it's worth making such advanced guesses about the intentions until it's proven that it could even steer itself and navigate with any accuracy at all.

Your comment is the equivalent of "sit down and shut up" which is contrary to the whole point of having this forum or any sort of intellectual discussion on any topic on HN.

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

#943

Post by sandworm101 »

angry_octet wrote: post #861
vuln wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U-2 can fly at 70,000 typical missions are 60-65,000ft. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2

Are the U-2s still flying in any numbers? The SR-71s? If they were, would a few balloons be a serious risk to their navigation?

Yes. Here is where you apply if you want to fly them.

https://www.beale.af.mil/Library/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article...

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

#944

Post by sandworm101 »

angry_octet wrote: post #867
ridgeguy wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

U-2 (TR-1), SR-71, WB-57

No longer in active service.

The U-2 is very much in service. Apply here if you want to fly it.

https://www.beale.af.mil/Library/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article...

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

#945

Post by lazyant »

petemir wrote: post #839
darkerside wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Size of a football field, got it

Which football? Real football or American football?

they are about the same btw (~10% difference which is fine for the purpose of showing measures relatable to people)

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

#946

Post by d0mine »

californical wrote: post #538
alanh wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, do we even need trig? Naively I would imagine that simple proportions would hold — e.g. same visible size @ twice the distance = object is twice as big

4x as big, since we see in two dimensions — you can judge length & height (but not depth). So if it appears the same size but twice as far away, the the length and height are each 2x. So that would make it the size of ~4 airplanes

the area is 4x but the diameter is just 2x here.

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

#947

Post by LarryMullins »

ARandomerDude wrote: post #309
LarryMullins wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America voted for a president who said he would, but then reneged on that promise. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/31/obama-... Fuck you Obama!

…either that, or he got into office, saw some actual intelligence and realized his utopian views were not grounded in reality. Then he did the responsible thing and didn’t keep an unethical promise. I didn’t really care for Obama but he did the right thing on that item, in my opinion.

So your theory is that Obama is still a good guy because he secretly discovered that the Bush administration and all the CIA torturers were secretly good people who were doing the right thing the whole time?

Bull. Shit.

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

#948

Post by drblastoff »

james4k wrote: post #291
drblastoff wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think the rest of the world has not developed? Have you been out in the world?

My point is the world will develop whether or not that is in the interest of those in power. I'm just going to assume you're not trying to say the world is evenly developed.

> My point is the world will develop whether or not that is in the interest of those in power.

I didn’t get that from “if the rest of the world is allowed to develop.” But yes, parts of the world have been developing much faster than the U.S., for instance, and in many cases now surpass the U.S. by many metrics.

I don’t believe the U.S. has actually done much to prevent this. In the case of China, actually just the opposite: the U.S. government and U.S. industry have repeatedly traded away its long-term advantages for short-term political and financial wins in a series of unforced errors over the last 30+ years. But who knows, maybe this is a good thing for the world.

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

#949

Post by mattmaroon »

heartbreak wrote: post #927
mattmaroon wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that did not occur to the military? I’m sure that if they blundered, it was not in some way that was so obvious. Either they simply didnt know about it until it was too late, or they had some reason to not shoot it then that you’re not aware of. The idea that they decided not to do so for no good reason is silly.

Yeah DOD has huge office buildings full of trained analysts, yet random people on the internet still think they’d do better.

You could spend a lot of time on HN just reminding people that everyone else isn’t an idiot.

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

#950

Post by giardini »

I wish they had:

a) damaged the balloon lightly to cause it to leak and lower slowly,

b) once at low altitude, perhaps drop a net tied to a float atop it to bog it down further, and

c) once in the water, reel it in.

I know the military can bring something like this balloon down in an orderly manner. Shooting it with a rocket seems crude and risky.

Post reply on HN