Live data from Hacker News

U.S. military shoots down suspected Chinese surveillance balloon

cnbc.com

981–990 of 1001 posts

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

#981

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…

What about using high powered lasers? There weee a lot of research into this by the military.

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

#982
post #730
post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do stories like this come from? Simple logic would tell you there is no possible way to weigh an aircraft coating to a milligram and verify that it matches a somehow measured precise amount applied to the aircraft. The concept is ridiculous.

it is in-fact common in the plating industry to predict/assess coating thickness via weight of product before & after the process; if you know the density/weight of the coating material then strong predictions can be made about the coating thickness given the known uniformity of the plating/anodize process. Whether or not that's done as a forensic measure after the fact, I don't know. It doesn't seem all that out of…

I can definitely see how that could make sense as a QA measure in manufacturing, where you can really control the process and everything that happens to it.

But fly the plane once, and you're not going to be able to make any realistic predictions on what the weight of the coating might be after it's been at Mach 2.0 at 50k feet (or what ever the numbers are, I have no idea) for who knows how long. Simply too many variables.

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

#983

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sputnik 2.0 It's a serious warning that the U.S. is dangerously behind China when it comes to balloon technology. Note also, balloons are one way of colonizing Venus (floating high in the atmosphere without having to approach the dangerously hot surface). Clearly we need a Venus Balloon Program to show who's the technological leader on this planet, just like with the Apollo Mission. Mars is for wimps, real explorers…

Sorry but I find “ that the U.S. is dangerously behind” laughable. A ballon around so your conclusion is to draw conclusions on the advances of nation states.

[deleted]

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

#984
post #752
post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird... Most groundbreaking research, and the consumer tech that eventually comes from it, seems to come out of post-secondary and tech/research companies. Crazy to think it's all a front and it's actually stemming from the US Military. Thank you for your service!

Not that crazy. Public knowledge, even. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Lincoln_Laboratory

Or... hear me out here...

It's obviously a web of private R&D, public institutions like NASA, higher education, and yes, the military too.

But acting like scientific innovation and technical progress is all, or even a majority due to the military is boot-licking weirdness.

You have fun with that.

I just don't know how you can look at the heaps of Nobel Prize winners, Turing Award, etc. or groundbreaking papers in almost and field and think "Oh yeah, must be the American Military is behind this."

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

#985
post #91
post #86

This seems like a worse idea than just collecting the thing and putting it in a faraday cage.

How do you go about collect it from 65,000 feet?

Not gonna lie, I don't know. But I feel like it's probably more useful to gather information on it than to destroy it.

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

#986
post #864

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is real football? I've heard of association football (shortened to soccer by the British), rugby football, Australian rules football, American football and Canadian football but I've never heard of real football.

And which one of those do you figure "real football" refers to? Can you take a wild guess? It's like saying "the real Albert Einstein", as opposed to good Albert Einstein the baker, who is a local celebrity because of his amazing Apfelstrudel. I guess it is confusing for Americans to find themselves as the cultural minority in some environment.

>And which one of those do you figure "real football" refers to? Can you take a wild guess?

You no doubt believe that Newton, Henry VIII, Edward the Confessor, William the Conqueror, Canute, Arthur and Launcelot, and Boadicia 1) all played association football, 2) called it the one and only "football", and 3) all other "football" sports around the world are bastard versions of it.

The word "Football" dates from the 13th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_%28word%29> The sport of association football, no. While people have no doubt been kicking round things for entertainment for thousands of years, association football as a sport is no older than other football codes like American, rugby, Gaelic, and AFL; all date from the mid to late 19th century. That's why English-speaking countries have differing meanings for "football", because it refers to the most local popular football code *no matter what that is*. Let me repeat: Association football has no primacy, seniority, or priority here. It is not the "first sport" or "the elder sport" or the "original sport" among football codes.

>I guess it is confusing for Americans to find themselves as the cultural minority in some environment.

"Cultural minority", eh? Among the major English-speaking peoples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_(word)#National_usage>, *Brits are outnumbered—whether by population or number of countries—in terms of how they use "football".*

"Soccer" is a British English word c. 1889. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22633980> According to Stephen Szymanski of the University of Michigan, until 1980 "soccer" and "football" were interchangeably used in Britain https://web.archive.org/web/20140627210952/ns.umich.edu/Rele...>, when "soccer" became less popular because of a mistaken belief that it is an Americanism. The word still is in use in Britain; see TV shows like Soccer Saturday.

Let me repeat: The association and American varieties of football are merely two of several codes that all emerged in the mid-19th century from people in various countries attempting to formalize in some way the informal sport of "running with/kicking the leather-covered thing" that has existed for thousands of years. Not, as the average Briton who thinks the word "soccer" is a product of 1970s American culture vaguely believes, Americans seeing British association football in action and rudely deciding to change the "mother sport" by changing the shape of the ball and letting players carry it.

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

#987
post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tangentially related. Spread spectrum signals are jamming resistant, have lower probability of intercept and can be effectively cryptographically secure.

Spread spectrum has little to do with whether or not the signal is truly encrypted.

A cryptographically secure sequence is used to spread the signal or do frequency hopping. The baseband may not even be encrypted but the signal definitely is.

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

#988
post #912

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…

Could just using aircraft guns be easier? I am probably completely wrong, just curious.

The balloon was at a very high altitude (66,000ft). The F-22 launched its missile at 58,000 feet, probably right at the edge of its loaded service ceiling, and the missile travelled rest of the way up. Given the height, I don't think it would've been easy to shoot it down with a cannon.

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

#989
post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jamming vs encryption... They are unrelated.

Tangentially related. Spread spectrum signals are jamming resistant, have lower probability of intercept and can be effectively cryptographically secure.

Cool! Thank you @geomark for the enlightening point.

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

#990
post #858

The fact that this became a story at all is purely geopolitical in my opinion. Perhaps to do Blinkens up coming Beijing visit (which has since been canned). As far as I can tell the chinese dislike bad press like this. Having the balloon become a fiasco becomes a reason to cancel the trip. Can't exactly tell the why's but this is my guess.

The cancellation came from the US side, not the Chinese side.

Exactly my point, having the balloon become a fiasco becomes reason to cancel the trip. There's some tit for tat that we don't know about.
Post reply on HN