I wonder why Rich hasn't posted anything on this matter yet.
Anyway, what kind of camera (if any) was on that balloon and why did it
have to be the size of three buses?
I wonder why Rich hasn't posted anything on this matter yet.
Anyway, what kind of camera (if any) was on that balloon and why did it
have to be the size of three buses?
I wonder why Rich hasn't posted anything on this matter yet.
Anyway, what kind of camera (if any) was on that balloon and why did it
have to be the size of three buses?
--
Alfred Molon
Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
You'll never know. Instead of strategically shooting holes in it and provide a gradual, soft landing on LAND, they shot it with a missile above thousands of feet of water. Make of THAT what you will.
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 15:07:53 UTC-5, Alfred Molon wrote:
I wonder why Rich hasn't posted anything on this matter yet.
Anyway, what kind of camera (if any) was on that balloon and why did it
have to be the size of three buses?
--
Alfred Molon
Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
You'll never know. Instead of strategically shooting holes in it and provide a gradual, soft landing on LAND, they shot it with a missile above thousands of feet of water. Make of THAT what you will.
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 15:07:53 UTC-5, Alfred Molon wrote:
I wonder why Rich hasn't posted anything on this matter yet.
Anyway, what kind of camera (if any) was on that balloon and why did it
have to be the size of three buses?
--
Alfred Molon
Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
You'll never know. Instead of strategically shooting holes in it and provide a gradual, soft landing on LAND, they shot it with a missile above thousands of feet of water. Make of THAT what you will.
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 15:07:53 UTC-5, Alfred Molon wrote:
I wonder why Rich hasn't posted anything on this matter yet.
Anyway, what kind of camera (if any) was on that balloon and why did it
have to be the size of three buses?
You'll never know. Instead of strategically shooting holes in it and provide a gradual, soft landing on LAND, they shot it with a missile above thousands of feet of water. Make of THAT what you will.
On 2023-02-05 23:38, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 15:07:53 UTC-5, Alfred Molon wrote:
I wonder why Rich hasn't posted anything on this matter yet.
Anyway, what kind of camera (if any) was on that balloon and why did it
have to be the size of three buses?
--
Alfred Molon
Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
You'll never know. Instead of strategically shooting holes in it and
provide a gradual, soft landing on LAND, they shot it with a missile
above thousands of feet of water. Make of THAT what you will.
Fighter jets top out around 65,000. Balloon: 80,000 feet. Even with
some audacious accelerate while level then climb profile, it would be
near impossible to take an accurate shot with the a/c cannon.
Then, even if you got shots onto the balloon it would be too little to
have much effect. The amount of gas leak per hour would not see much settling. An F-22 carries about 250 rounds of ammo. Few (if any) would hit. Those rounds that were shot are going to fall somewhere and that
could be tragic too.
The "right wing" is going bonkers over this because: MAGA!!!!!
W/o realizing that professionals in the military actually think these
things through. That includes the "cost" of whatever intel the Chinese might be getting off of the balloon via satellite - such mitigated in
advance through ground prep.
(And: it landed in 47 feet of water).
On 2023-02-06 12:28, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-02-06 14:50, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-02-05 23:38, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 15:07:53 UTC-5, Alfred Molon wrote:
I wonder why Rich hasn't posted anything on this matter yet.
Anyway, what kind of camera (if any) was on that balloon and why
did it have to be the size of three buses?
You'll never know. Instead of strategically shooting holes in itFighter jets top out around 65,000. Balloon: 80,000 feet. Even with
and provide a gradual, soft landing on LAND, they shot it with a
missile above thousands of feet of water. Make of THAT what you will. >>>
Clarification: this particular balloon was at about 80k ft, these can go substantially higher.
some audacious accelerate while level then climb profile, it would be
near impossible to take an accurate shot with the a/c cannon.
Then, even if you got shots onto the balloon it would be too little
to have much effect. The amount of gas leak per hour would not see
much settling. An F-22 carries about 250 rounds of ammo. Few (if any)
I looked it up: 480 rounds on the F-22. 100 rounds/s.
would hit. Those rounds that were shot are going to fall somewhere
and that could be tragic too.
Even with a single bullet hole, the thing would fall. Slowly, but
would fall. Just follow it on the ground and pick it up when it
reaches the ground or the sea.
No it wouldn't. This thing was gigantnormous. A single round through
it would punch two meaningless holes. It would likely get to Africa first.
Even if you could get it to descent with some holes, the descent rate
would go out of control as you enter denser and denser air, the balloon
would shrink and so become more and more dense as it falls and
accelerate to very high speed on its way down.
Destructive feedback loop, wot.
(pro-tip: descents are controlled events).
IAC, as stated - getting canon shot onto it in the first place is very unlikely from a fighter that is 10 - 15,000 lower in altitude or
attempting some fantastic ballistic approach.
The military made the right decision, because it is their job to make
well educated and expertly informed decisions.
So when they received the order to do so, they did what the military do:
Get the data. Analyze. Decide. Plan. Communicate. Train if needed. Execute. Report.
On 2023-02-06 14:50, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-02-05 23:38, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 15:07:53 UTC-5, Alfred Molon wrote:
I wonder why Rich hasn't posted anything on this matter yet.
Anyway, what kind of camera (if any) was on that balloon and why did it >>>> have to be the size of three buses?
--
Alfred Molon
Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
You'll never know. Instead of strategically shooting holes in it and
provide a gradual, soft landing on LAND, they shot it with a missile
above thousands of feet of water. Make of THAT what you will.
Fighter jets top out around 65,000. Balloon: 80,000 feet. Even with
some audacious accelerate while level then climb profile, it would be
near impossible to take an accurate shot with the a/c cannon.
Then, even if you got shots onto the balloon it would be too little to
have much effect. The amount of gas leak per hour would not see much
settling. An F-22 carries about 250 rounds of ammo. Few (if any)
would hit. Those rounds that were shot are going to fall somewhere
and that could be tragic too.
Even with a single bullet hole, the thing would fall. Slowly, but would
fall. Just follow it on the ground and pick it up when it reaches the
ground or the sea.
On 2023-02-06 19:24, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-02-06 12:28, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-02-06 14:50, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-02-05 23:38, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 15:07:53 UTC-5, Alfred Molon wrote:
I wonder why Rich hasn't posted anything on this matter yet.
Anyway, what kind of camera (if any) was on that balloon and why
did it have to be the size of three buses?
You'll never know. Instead of strategically shooting holes in itFighter jets top out around 65,000. Balloon: 80,000 feet. Even with
and provide a gradual, soft landing on LAND, they shot it with a
missile above thousands of feet of water. Make of THAT what you will. >>>>
Clarification: this particular balloon was at about 80k ft, these can
go substantially higher.
I looked it up: 480 rounds on the F-22. 100 rounds/s.some audacious accelerate while level then climb profile, it would
be near impossible to take an accurate shot with the a/c cannon.
Then, even if you got shots onto the balloon it would be too little
to have much effect. The amount of gas leak per hour would not see
much settling. An F-22 carries about 250 rounds of ammo. Few (if any) >>
would hit. Those rounds that were shot are going to fall somewhere
and that could be tragic too.
Even with a single bullet hole, the thing would fall. Slowly, but
would fall. Just follow it on the ground and pick it up when it
reaches the ground or the sea.
No it wouldn't. This thing was gigantnormous. A single round through
it would punch two meaningless holes. It would likely get to Africa
first.
Then it would fall in Africa :-D
I'm sure it can be calculated, but not by me.
_Eventually_ it will fall somewhere :-)
Normal balloons, when punctured, explode. The rubber tears instantly
starting in the pin hole.
Even if you could get it to descent with some holes, the descent rate
would go out of control as you enter denser and denser air, the
balloon would shrink and so become more and more dense as it falls and
accelerate to very high speed on its way down.
Destructive feedback loop, wot.
Possibly the thing is designed to detect the slow fall, and at some
altitude drop the package, which then deploys the parachute (and a
beacon with GPS), while the balloon goes on its merry way, or perhaps it
has a mechanism to rip it off and fall fast.
Those things have to go down, eventually, and the fall down method has
to be calculated and engineered. Although the Chinese seem not to care
where their satellites fall down or how, so whether they do better for balloons is an unknown.
If it is a military balloon, normal engineering would design to self
destruct the package so that it can not be analyzed. Or, it would do
nothing for deniability.
I guess we will never know.
On 2023-02-06 14:01, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-02-06 19:24, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-02-06 12:28, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-02-06 14:50, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-02-05 23:38, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 15:07:53 UTC-5, Alfred Molon wrote: >>>>>>> I wonder why Rich hasn't posted anything on this matter yet.
Anyway, what kind of camera (if any) was on that balloon and why >>>>>>> did it have to be the size of three buses?
Clarification: this particular balloon was at about 80k ft, these canYou'll never know. Instead of strategically shooting holes in it >>>>>> and provide a gradual, soft landing on LAND, they shot it with a
missile above thousands of feet of water. Make of THAT what you
will.
Fighter jets top out around 65,000. Balloon: 80,000 feet. Even with >>>
go substantially higher.
some audacious accelerate while level then climb profile, it would
be near impossible to take an accurate shot with the a/c cannon.
Then, even if you got shots onto the balloon it would be too little
to have much effect. The amount of gas leak per hour would not see >>>>> much settling. An F-22 carries about 250 rounds of ammo. Few (if >>>>> any)
I looked it up: 480 rounds on the F-22. 100 rounds/s.
would hit. Those rounds that were shot are going to fall somewhere >>>>> and that could be tragic too.
Even with a single bullet hole, the thing would fall. Slowly, but
would fall. Just follow it on the ground and pick it up when it
reaches the ground or the sea.
No it wouldn't. This thing was gigantnormous. A single round
through it would punch two meaningless holes. It would likely get to
Africa first.
Then it would fall in Africa :-D
I'm sure it can be calculated, but not by me.
_Eventually_ it will fall somewhere :-)
Normal balloons, when punctured, explode. The rubber tears instantly
starting in the pin hole.
Nothing normal about these balloons compared to what we generally see.
These are "zero pressure" balloons. Meaning the pressure in the balloon equals the ambient pressure. You don't even have to have a valve at the bottom to stop the helium from escaping (it rises to the top of the
balloon).
A rubber balloon will pop because the pressure inside is greater than outside.
Even if you could get it to descent with some holes, the descent rate
would go out of control as you enter denser and denser air, the
balloon would shrink and so become more and more dense as it falls
and accelerate to very high speed on its way down.
Destructive feedback loop, wot.
Possibly the thing is designed to detect the slow fall, and at some
altitude drop the package, which then deploys the parachute (and a
beacon with GPS), while the balloon goes on its merry way, or perhaps
it has a mechanism to rip it off and fall fast.
Those things have to go down, eventually, and the fall down method has
to be calculated and engineered. Although the Chinese seem not to care
where their satellites fall down or how, so whether they do better for
balloons is an unknown.
These balloons (typically) have a compressor on board to inflate another balloon inside the main balloon - but with ordinary air - this is the altitude control (also of course a valve to de-pressurize that sub
balloon. It works by simply changing the overall system density. (Not very different than a scuba diver's BCD.
If it is a military balloon, normal engineering would design to self
destruct the package so that it can not be analyzed. Or, it would do
nothing for deniability.
I guess we will never know.
All plausible.
On 2023-02-06 21:26, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-02-06 14:01, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-02-06 19:24, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-02-06 12:28, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-02-06 14:50, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-02-05 23:38, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 15:07:53 UTC-5, Alfred Molon wrote: >>>>>>>> I wonder why Rich hasn't posted anything on this matter yet.
Anyway, what kind of camera (if any) was on that balloon and why >>>>>>>> did it have to be the size of three buses?
Clarification: this particular balloon was at about 80k ft, theseYou'll never know. Instead of strategically shooting holes in it >>>>>>> and provide a gradual, soft landing on LAND, they shot it with a >>>>>>> missile above thousands of feet of water. Make of THAT what you >>>>>>> will.
Fighter jets top out around 65,000. Balloon: 80,000 feet. Even with >>>>
can go substantially higher.
some audacious accelerate while level then climb profile, it would >>>>>> be near impossible to take an accurate shot with the a/c cannon.
Then, even if you got shots onto the balloon it would be too
little to have much effect. The amount of gas leak per hour would >>>>>> not see much settling. An F-22 carries about 250 rounds of ammo. >>>>>> Few (if any)
I looked it up: 480 rounds on the F-22. 100 rounds/s.
would hit. Those rounds that were shot are going to fall
somewhere and that could be tragic too.
Even with a single bullet hole, the thing would fall. Slowly, but
would fall. Just follow it on the ground and pick it up when it
reaches the ground or the sea.
No it wouldn't. This thing was gigantnormous. A single round
through it would punch two meaningless holes. It would likely get
to Africa first.
Then it would fall in Africa :-D
I'm sure it can be calculated, but not by me.
_Eventually_ it will fall somewhere :-)
Normal balloons, when punctured, explode. The rubber tears instantly
starting in the pin hole.
Nothing normal about these balloons compared to what we generally see.
These are "zero pressure" balloons. Meaning the pressure in the
balloon equals the ambient pressure. You don't even have to have a
valve at the bottom to stop the helium from escaping (it rises to the
top of the balloon).
A rubber balloon will pop because the pressure inside is greater than
outside.
Ok.
But those balloons are elongated vertically, and this was, apparently, spherical, which suggest a positive pressure inside.
Even if you could get it to descent with some holes, the descent
rate would go out of control as you enter denser and denser air, the
balloon would shrink and so become more and more dense as it falls
and accelerate to very high speed on its way down.
Destructive feedback loop, wot.
Possibly the thing is designed to detect the slow fall, and at some
altitude drop the package, which then deploys the parachute (and a
beacon with GPS), while the balloon goes on its merry way, or perhaps
it has a mechanism to rip it off and fall fast.
Those things have to go down, eventually, and the fall down method
has to be calculated and engineered. Although the Chinese seem not to
care where their satellites fall down or how, so whether they do
better for balloons is an unknown.
These balloons (typically) have a compressor on board to inflate
another balloon inside the main balloon - but with ordinary air - this
is the altitude control (also of course a valve to de-pressurize that
sub balloon. It works by simply changing the overall system density.
(Not very different than a scuba diver's BCD.
Ah. But to change the density means changing the pressure inside.
Meaning, there must be some positive pressure, not zero as we said above.
Why not pump the helium itself into a container, is that not feasible?
If it is a military balloon, normal engineering would design to self
destruct the package so that it can not be analyzed. Or, it would do
nothing for deniability.
I guess we will never know.
All plausible.
On sci.electronics.design, whit3rd said «If it WERE a surveillance
device, I'd expect volatile memory erased, and software-defined-radio
with completely generic characteristics. Intelligence information
of any utility is not likely.»
Which I find interesting.
On 2023-02-06 14:50, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-02-05 23:38, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 15:07:53 UTC-5, Alfred Molon wrote:
I wonder why Rich hasn't posted anything on this matter yet.
Anyway, what kind of camera (if any) was on that balloon and why did it >>> have to be the size of three buses?
You'll never know. Instead of strategically shooting holes in it and
provide a gradual, soft landing on LAND, they shot it with a missile
above thousands of feet of water. Make of THAT what you will.
Fighter jets top out around 65,000. Balloon: 80,000 feet. Even with
some audacious accelerate while level then climb profile, it would be
near impossible to take an accurate shot with the a/c cannon.
Then, even if you got shots onto the balloon it would be too little to have much effect. The amount of gas leak per hour would not see much settling. An F-22 carries about 250 rounds of ammo. Few (if any) would hit. Those rounds that were shot are going to fall somewhere and that could be tragic too.
Even with a single bullet hole, the thing would fall. Slowly, but would fall.
Just follow it on the ground and pick it up when it reaches the
ground or the sea.
(And: it landed in 47 feet of water).
On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 12:32:21 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-02-06 14:50, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-02-05 23:38, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 15:07:53 UTC-5, Alfred Molon wrote:
I wonder why Rich hasn't posted anything on this matter yet.
Anyway, what kind of camera (if any) was on that balloon and why did it >>>>> have to be the size of three buses?
Some would have been support for all of the solar panels it was carrying; time might tell why it had so much power generation onboard (motor for maneuver?).
You'll never know. Instead of strategically shooting holes in it and
provide a gradual, soft landing on LAND, they shot it with a missile
above thousands of feet of water. Make of THAT what you will.
Fighter jets top out around 65,000. Balloon: 80,000 feet. Even with
some audacious accelerate while level then climb profile, it would be
near impossible to take an accurate shot with the a/c cannon.
Then, even if you got shots onto the balloon it would be too little to
have much effect. The amount of gas leak per hour would not see much
settling. An F-22 carries about 250 rounds of ammo. Few (if any) would >>> hit. Those rounds that were shot are going to fall somewhere and that
could be tragic too.
Even with a single bullet hole, the thing would fall. Slowly, but would
fall.
That was tried by Canada 25 years ago. 1000 rounds and it still stayed up for a week.
< https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/weather-balloon-canada-china-1.6737831>
A tethered balloon got loose awhile back too … pulled down high power electrical lines in PA, and lots of other damage.
Just follow it on the ground and pick it up when it reaches the
ground or the sea.
Except:
(And: it landed in 47 feet of water).
Which is an easy salvage, plus legally, is within US territorial waters.
A lot better option than the deep & cold water off of Alaska.
On 2023-02-06 15:47, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-02-06 21:26, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-02-06 14:01, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-02-06 19:24, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-02-06 12:28, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-02-06 14:50, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-02-05 23:38, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 15:07:53 UTC-5, Alfred Molon wrote: >>>>>>>>> I wonder why Rich hasn't posted anything on this matter yet. >>>>>>>>>
Anyway, what kind of camera (if any) was on that balloon and >>>>>>>>> why did it have to be the size of three buses?
You'll never know. Instead of strategically shooting holes in >>>>>>>> it and provide a gradual, soft landing on LAND, they shot it
with a missile above thousands of feet of water. Make of THAT >>>>>>>> what you will.
Fighter jets top out around 65,000. Balloon: 80,000 feet. Even >>>>>>> with
Clarification: this particular balloon was at about 80k ft, these
can go substantially higher.
some audacious accelerate while level then climb profile, it
would be near impossible to take an accurate shot with the a/c
cannon.
Then, even if you got shots onto the balloon it would be too
little to have much effect. The amount of gas leak per hour
would not see much settling. An F-22 carries about 250 rounds of >>>>>>> ammo. Few (if any)
I looked it up: 480 rounds on the F-22. 100 rounds/s.
would hit. Those rounds that were shot are going to fall
somewhere and that could be tragic too.
Even with a single bullet hole, the thing would fall. Slowly, but
would fall. Just follow it on the ground and pick it up when it
reaches the ground or the sea.
No it wouldn't. This thing was gigantnormous. A single round
through it would punch two meaningless holes. It would likely get
to Africa first.
Then it would fall in Africa :-D
I'm sure it can be calculated, but not by me.
_Eventually_ it will fall somewhere :-)
Normal balloons, when punctured, explode. The rubber tears instantly
starting in the pin hole.
Nothing normal about these balloons compared to what we generally see.
These are "zero pressure" balloons. Meaning the pressure in the
balloon equals the ambient pressure. You don't even have to have a
valve at the bottom to stop the helium from escaping (it rises to the
top of the balloon).
A rubber balloon will pop because the pressure inside is greater than
outside.
Ok.
But those balloons are elongated vertically, and this was, apparently,
spherical, which suggest a positive pressure inside.
At sea level - elongated.
Higher they go, the rounder they get.
Even if you could get it to descent with some holes, the descent
rate would go out of control as you enter denser and denser air,
the balloon would shrink and so become more and more dense as it
falls and accelerate to very high speed on its way down.
Destructive feedback loop, wot.
Possibly the thing is designed to detect the slow fall, and at some
altitude drop the package, which then deploys the parachute (and a
beacon with GPS), while the balloon goes on its merry way, or
perhaps it has a mechanism to rip it off and fall fast.
Those things have to go down, eventually, and the fall down method
has to be calculated and engineered. Although the Chinese seem not
to care where their satellites fall down or how, so whether they do
better for balloons is an unknown.
These balloons (typically) have a compressor on board to inflate
another balloon inside the main balloon - but with ordinary air -
this is the altitude control (also of course a valve to de-pressurize
that sub balloon. It works by simply changing the overall system
density. (Not very different than a scuba diver's BCD.
Ah. But to change the density means changing the pressure inside.
Meaning, there must be some positive pressure, not zero as we said above.
Why not pump the helium itself into a container, is that not feasible?
Simpler (and probably lighter) to simply have a control bladder inside
the main envelope.
If it is a military balloon, normal engineering would design to self
destruct the package so that it can not be analyzed. Or, it would do
nothing for deniability.
I guess we will never know.
All plausible.
On sci.electronics.design, whit3rd said «If it WERE a surveillance
device, I'd expect volatile memory erased, and software-defined-radio
with completely generic characteristics. Intelligence information
of any utility is not likely.»
Which I find interesting.
Certainly plausible (and interesting).
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 15:07:53 UTC-5, Alfred Molon wrote:
I wonder why Rich hasn't posted anything on this matter yet.
Anyway, what kind of camera (if any) was on that balloon and why did it have to be the size of three buses?
--
Alfred Molon
Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum atYou'll never know. Instead of strategically shooting holes in it and provide a gradual, soft landing on LAND, they shot it with a missile above thousands of feet of water. Make of THAT what you will.
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
I'm sure they would be able to reclaim remnants/shadows of what was on
all but physically-destroyed volatile memory, and pretty much anything
is eventually decipherable. And if benign, then not strongly encrypted anyway.
...
Reminds me, during WWI aviation tried to shoot down dirigibles, and it
was hard. I think they tried incendiary ammunition, but those things
used hydrogen, not helium. Still, the bullets did not explode.
On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 8:16:45 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
...
Reminds me, during WWI aviation tried to shoot down dirigibles, and it
was hard. I think they tried incendiary ammunition, but those things
used hydrogen, not helium. Still, the bullets did not explode.
It took the Allies awhile to figure out how to shoot down the German Zeppelin's.
In a nutshell, it was a combination of tracer ammunition and airplane technology
to be able to fly high enough to engage them.
The initial WW1 biplanes could get up to ~11,000ft, whereas the early Zep's were
flying above them at 14-15K ... call it roughly a mile vertical, which is out of range
of .30 caliber machine guns. By War's end, the Zep's would cruise at 20K and
could go as high as 24K, and while the highest flying aircraft could match this,
it would take an hour to climb that high, by which time the Zep was gone.
Even today, people just don't have a good appreciation for altitude. Seems we
got lucky with this balloon being as low as it was ... at "only" 65,000ft (maybe
because big payload?), because there's been Chinese balloon flights in excess of 300,000ft. 300K is in the Thermosphere, near the Kármán_line (edge of outer
space), and is roughly twice as high as where flight control surfaces are effective.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 147:19:47 |
| Calls: | 10,383 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 14,054 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (1,861K bytes) |
| Messages: | 6,417,728 |