https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230210-what-it-takes-to-build-a-balloon-for-100000ft
Nice article about what balloons can do now days!
Balloons can go out to the edge of the space without fuel or large cost and stay there for a long time.
I doubt the Chines balloon was spying?
On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 2:18:00 AM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230210-what-it-takes-to-build-a-balloon-for-100000ft
Nice article about what balloons can do now days!
Balloons can go out to the edge of the space without fuel or large cost and stay there for a long time.
And, indeed, even back during World War I, balloons could go much higher than the airplanes
of that time could go. This is why the United States banned the export of helium for so long.
I doubt the Chines balloon was spying?
Why? If the balloon can go up so high that airplanes can't intercept it, then it's the perfect
device for doing spying at a closer distance than satellites could achieve.
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 07:12:55 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 2:18:00 AM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230210-what-it-takes-to-build-a-balloon-for-100000ft
Nice article about what balloons can do now days!
Balloons can go out to the edge of the space without fuel or large cost and stay there for a long time.
And, indeed, even back during World War I, balloons could go much higher than the airplanes
of that time could go. This is why the United States banned the export of helium for so long.
I doubt the Chines balloon was spying?
Why? If the balloon can go up so high that airplanes can't intercept it, then it's the perfect
device for doing spying at a closer distance than satellites could achieve. Well, planes can intercept balloons at 60,000 ft or more
On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 10:42:14 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 07:12:55 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 2:18:00 AM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230210-what-it-takes-to-build-a-balloon-for-100000ft
Nice article about what balloons can do now days!
Balloons can go out to the edge of the space without fuel or large cost and stay there for a long time.
And, indeed, even back during World War I, balloons could go much higher than the airplanes
of that time could go. This is why the United States banned the export of helium for so long.
I doubt the Chines balloon was spying?
Why? If the balloon can go up so high that airplanes can't intercept it, then it's the perfect
device for doing spying at a closer distance than satellites could achieve. >> Well, planes can intercept balloons at 60,000 ft or more
Oddly, neither the F-22 nor the F-35 can (service ceilings 50,000ft) but the older F-15 can go to 65,000ft.
On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 2:18:00 AM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230210-what-it-takes-to-build-a-balloon-for-100000ft
Nice article about what balloons can do now days!And, indeed, even back during World War I, balloons could go much higher than the airplanes
Balloons can go out to the edge of the space without fuel or large cost and stay there for a long time.
of that time could go. This is why the United States banned the export of helium for so long.
I doubt the Chines balloon was spying?Why? If the balloon can go up so high that airplanes can't intercept it, then it's the perfect
device for doing spying at a closer distance than satellites could achieve.
John Savard
On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 10:42:14 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 07:12:55 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 2:18:00 AM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230210-what-it-takes-to-build-a-balloon-for-100000ft
Nice article about what balloons can do now days!
Balloons can go out to the edge of the space without fuel or large cost and stay there for a long time.
And, indeed, even back during World War I, balloons could go much higher than the airplanes
of that time could go. This is why the United States banned the export of helium for so long.
I doubt the Chines balloon was spying?
Oddly, neither the F-22 nor the F-35 can (service ceilings 50,000ft) but the older F-15 can go to 65,000ft.Why? If the balloon can go up so high that airplanes can't intercept it, then it's the perfectWell, planes can intercept balloons at 60,000 ft or more
device for doing spying at a closer distance than satellites could achieve.
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 08:05:22 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 10:42:14 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 07:12:55 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 2:18:00 AM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:Well, planes can intercept balloons at 60,000 ft or more
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230210-what-it-takes-to-build-a-balloon-for-100000ft
Nice article about what balloons can do now days!
Balloons can go out to the edge of the space without fuel or large cost and stay there for a long time.
And, indeed, even back during World War I, balloons could go much higher than the airplanes
of that time could go. This is why the United States banned the export of helium for so long.
I doubt the Chines balloon was spying?
Why? If the balloon can go up so high that airplanes can't intercept it, then it's the perfect
device for doing spying at a closer distance than satellites could achieve.
Oddly, neither the F-22 nor the F-35 can (service ceilings 50,000ft) but the older F-15 can go to 65,000ft.The Chinese balloon was studied by U2s, which operate to at least
70,000 feet. And, of course, if we want to down one there's no need to
do it from an aircraft, or necessarily one that is at the same
altitude as the balloon.
A balloon is pretty much a sitting duck.
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 08:05:22 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 10:42:14 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 07:12:55 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 2:18:00 AM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:Well, planes can intercept balloons at 60,000 ft or more
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230210-what-it-takes-to-build-a-balloon-for-100000ft
Nice article about what balloons can do now days!
Balloons can go out to the edge of the space without fuel or large cost and stay there for a long time.
And, indeed, even back during World War I, balloons could go much higher than the airplanes
of that time could go. This is why the United States banned the export of helium for so long.
I doubt the Chines balloon was spying?
Why? If the balloon can go up so high that airplanes can't intercept it, then it's the perfect
device for doing spying at a closer distance than satellites could achieve.
Oddly, neither the F-22 nor the F-35 can (service ceilings 50,000ft) but the older F-15 can go to 65,000ft.The Chinese balloon was studied by U2s, which operate to at least
70,000 feet. And, of course, if we want to down one there's no need to
do it from an aircraft, or necessarily one that is at the same
altitude as the balloon.
A balloon is pretty much a sitting duck.
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 07:12:55 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 2:18:00 AM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230210-what-it-takes-to-build-a-balloon-for-100000ft
Nice article about what balloons can do now days!
Balloons can go out to the edge of the space without fuel or large cost and stay there for a long time.
And, indeed, even back during World War I, balloons could go much higher than the airplanes
of that time could go. This is why the United States banned the export of helium for so long.
I doubt the Chines balloon was spying?
Why? If the balloon can go up so high that airplanes can't intercept it, then it's the perfectcloser doesn't necessarily translate to better imaging. The optics on
device for doing spying at a closer distance than satellites could achieve. Well, planes can intercept balloons at 60,000 ft or more. And being
a balloon-borne imager are at least an order of magnitude smaller than
what is on spy satellites. And by all accounts, the adaptive optics on
top notch spy satellites largely reduces atmospheric distortion.
Given the steerability of satellites and their near immunity to communications jamming, it's hard to see how balloons provide much
advantage. I'd say they're cheaper and so a good choice for floating
around over less developed areas. But they're not much use for
surveilling the U.S. or other such countries.
On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 9:42:14 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 07:12:55 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 2:18:00 AM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:closer doesn't necessarily translate to better imaging. The optics on
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230210-what-it-takes-to-build-a-balloon-for-100000ft
Nice article about what balloons can do now days!
Balloons can go out to the edge of the space without fuel or large cost and stay there for a long time.
And, indeed, even back during World War I, balloons could go much higher than the airplanes
of that time could go. This is why the United States banned the export of helium for so long.
I doubt the Chines balloon was spying?
Why? If the balloon can go up so high that airplanes can't intercept it, then it's the perfect
device for doing spying at a closer distance than satellites could achieve. >> Well, planes can intercept balloons at 60,000 ft or more. And being
a balloon-borne imager are at least an order of magnitude smaller than
what is on spy satellites. And by all accounts, the adaptive optics on
top notch spy satellites largely reduces atmospheric distortion.
Given the steerability of satellites and their near immunity to
communications jamming, it's hard to see how balloons provide much
advantage. I'd say they're cheaper and so a good choice for floating
around over less developed areas. But they're not much use for
surveilling the U.S. or other such countries.
What is an "order of magnitude" on an astronomer's forum?
10 or 100^(1/5) {i.e. 100 raised to the 1/5 power}?
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 08:05:22 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 10:42:14 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 07:12:55 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 2:18:00 AM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:Well, planes can intercept balloons at 60,000 ft or more
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230210-what-it-takes-to-build-a-balloon-for-100000ft
Nice article about what balloons can do now days!
Balloons can go out to the edge of the space without fuel or large cost and stay there for a long time.
And, indeed, even back during World War I, balloons could go much higher than the airplanes
of that time could go. This is why the United States banned the export of helium for so long.
I doubt the Chines balloon was spying?
Why? If the balloon can go up so high that airplanes can't intercept it, then it's the perfect
device for doing spying at a closer distance than satellites could achieve.
Oddly, neither the F-22 nor the F-35 can (service ceilings 50,000ft) but the older F-15 can go to 65,000ft.
The Chinese balloon was studied by U2s, which operate to at least
70,000 feet. And, of course, if we want to down one there's no need to
do it from an aircraft, or necessarily one that is at the same
altitude as the balloon.
A balloon is pretty much a sitting duck.
On 11/02/2023 17:26, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 08:05:22 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 10:42:14 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: >>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 07:12:55 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 2:18:00 AM UTC-7, StarDust wrote: >>>>> https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230210-what-it-takes-to-build-a-balloon-for-100000ftWell, planes can intercept balloons at 60,000 ft or more
Nice article about what balloons can do now days!
Balloons can go out to the edge of the space without fuel or large cost and stay there for a long time.
And, indeed, even back during World War I, balloons could go much higher than the airplanes
of that time could go. This is why the United States banned the export of helium for so long.
I doubt the Chines balloon was spying?
Why? If the balloon can go up so high that airplanes can't intercept it, then it's the perfect
device for doing spying at a closer distance than satellites could achieve.
Oddly, neither the F-22 nor the F-35 can (service ceilings 50,000ft) but the older F-15 can go to 65,000ft.
The Chinese balloon was studied by U2s, which operate to at least
70,000 feet. And, of course, if we want to down one there's no need to
do it from an aircraft, or necessarily one that is at the same
altitude as the balloon.
A balloon is pretty much a sitting duck.Indeed. It did make me wonder about the merit of hitting it with an air
to air missile - guaranteeing that there would be smashed up bits spread
over a huge debris field by the time it reaches the ground.
Putting a few rounds through the canopy would bring it down a lot more gracefully assuming that ballistic ammunition has the required range.
Otherwise it was an ideal target for a directed energy energy weapon to
put a few holes into the balloon canopy and have it come down slowly (assuming that there were no self destruct charges on the thing).
That way you get to see exactly what kit the thing was carrying give or
take a bump when the thing hits the deck uncontrolled. What they have
now is a kit of bits smashed into smithereens, spread over 50 square
miles and a much more difficult task of finding and reassembling the
various bits they can find. Bits of balloon envelope are not
particularly interesting - you want the kit that hung underneath it.
I presume the reason that they are finding a host of new things to shoot
down now is that NORAD now have the electronic signature of the kit that these devices use to communicate back to their base.
We have to hope that the latest shoot downs are not of unmanned alien
probes or they might get a bit pissed off with us. I'm not sure I'd want
to encounter an annoyed alien species capable of interstellar travel.
--
Martin Brown
On 11/02/2023 17:26, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 08:05:22 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 10:42:14 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: >>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 07:12:55 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 2:18:00 AM UTC-7, StarDust wrote: >>>>> https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230210-what-it-takes-to-build-a-balloon-for-100000ftWell, planes can intercept balloons at 60,000 ft or more
Nice article about what balloons can do now days!
Balloons can go out to the edge of the space without fuel or large cost and stay there for a long time.
And, indeed, even back during World War I, balloons could go much higher than the airplanes
of that time could go. This is why the United States banned the export of helium for so long.
I doubt the Chines balloon was spying?
Why? If the balloon can go up so high that airplanes can't intercept it, then it's the perfect
device for doing spying at a closer distance than satellites could achieve.
Oddly, neither the F-22 nor the F-35 can (service ceilings 50,000ft) but the older F-15 can go to 65,000ft.
The Chinese balloon was studied by U2s, which operate to at least
70,000 feet. And, of course, if we want to down one there's no need to
do it from an aircraft, or necessarily one that is at the same
altitude as the balloon.
A balloon is pretty much a sitting duck.Indeed. It did make me wonder about the merit of hitting it with an air
to air missile - guaranteeing that there would be smashed up bits spread
over a huge debris field by the time it reaches the ground.
Putting a few rounds through the canopy would bring it down a lot more gracefully assuming that ballistic ammunition has the required range.
Otherwise it was an ideal target for a directed energy energy weapon to
put a few holes into the balloon canopy and have it come down slowly (assuming that there were no self destruct charges on the thing).
That way you get to see exactly what kit the thing was carrying give or
take a bump when the thing hits the deck uncontrolled. What they have
now is a kit of bits smashed into smithereens, spread over 50 square
miles and a much more difficult task of finding and reassembling the
various bits they can find. Bits of balloon envelope are not
particularly interesting - you want the kit that hung underneath it.
I presume the reason that they are finding a host of new things to shoot
down now is that NORAD now have the electronic signature of the kit that these devices use to communicate back to their base.
We have to hope that the latest shoot downs are not of unmanned alien
probes or they might get a bit pissed off with us. I'm not sure I'd want
to encounter an annoyed alien species capable of interstellar travel.
--
Martin Brown
On 11/02/2023 17:26, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 08:05:22 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 10:42:14 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: >>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 07:12:55 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 2:18:00 AM UTC-7, StarDust wrote: >>>>> https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230210-what-it-takes-to-build-a-balloon-for-100000ftWell, planes can intercept balloons at 60,000 ft or more
Nice article about what balloons can do now days!
Balloons can go out to the edge of the space without fuel or large cost and stay there for a long time.
And, indeed, even back during World War I, balloons could go much higher than the airplanes
of that time could go. This is why the United States banned the export of helium for so long.
I doubt the Chines balloon was spying?
Why? If the balloon can go up so high that airplanes can't intercept it, then it's the perfect
device for doing spying at a closer distance than satellites could achieve.
Oddly, neither the F-22 nor the F-35 can (service ceilings 50,000ft) but the older F-15 can go to 65,000ft.
The Chinese balloon was studied by U2s, which operate to at least
70,000 feet. And, of course, if we want to down one there's no need to
do it from an aircraft, or necessarily one that is at the same
altitude as the balloon.
A balloon is pretty much a sitting duck.Indeed. It did make me wonder about the merit of hitting it with an air
to air missile - guaranteeing that there would be smashed up bits spread
over a huge debris field by the time it reaches the ground.
Putting a few rounds through the canopy would bring it down a lot more gracefully assuming that ballistic ammunition has the required range.
Otherwise it was an ideal target for a directed energy energy weapon to
put a few holes into the balloon canopy and have it come down slowly (assuming that there were no self destruct charges on the thing).
That way you get to see exactly what kit the thing was carrying give or
take a bump when the thing hits the deck uncontrolled. What they have
now is a kit of bits smashed into smithereens, spread over 50 square
miles and a much more difficult task of finding and reassembling the
various bits they can find. Bits of balloon envelope are not
particularly interesting - you want the kit that hung underneath it.
I presume the reason that they are finding a host of new things to shoot
down now is that NORAD now have the electronic signature of the kit that these devices use to communicate back to their base.
We have to hope that the latest shoot downs are not of unmanned alien
probes or they might get a bit pissed off with us. I'm not sure I'd want
to encounter an annoyed alien species capable of interstellar travel.
When a Canadian weather balloon went rogue https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64546767
On 11/02/2023 17:26, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 08:05:22 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 10:42:14 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: >>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 07:12:55 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 2:18:00 AM UTC-7, StarDust wrote: >>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230210-what-it-takes-to-build-a-balloon-for-100000ftWell, planes can intercept balloons at 60,000 ft or more
Nice article about what balloons can do now days!
Balloons can go out to the edge of the space without fuel or large cost and stay there for a long time.
And, indeed, even back during World War I, balloons could go much higher than the airplanes
of that time could go. This is why the United States banned the export of helium for so long.
I doubt the Chines balloon was spying?
Why? If the balloon can go up so high that airplanes can't intercept it, then it's the perfect
device for doing spying at a closer distance than satellites could achieve.
Oddly, neither the F-22 nor the F-35 can (service ceilings 50,000ft) but the older F-15 can go to 65,000ft.
The Chinese balloon was studied by U2s, which operate to at least
70,000 feet. And, of course, if we want to down one there's no need to
do it from an aircraft, or necessarily one that is at the same
altitude as the balloon.
A balloon is pretty much a sitting duck.
Indeed. It did make me wonder about the merit of hitting it with an air
to air missile - guaranteeing that there would be smashed up bits spread
over a huge debris field by the time it reaches the ground.
Putting a few rounds through the canopy would bring it down a lot more >gracefully assuming that ballistic ammunition has the required range.
Otherwise it was an ideal target for a directed energy energy weapon to
put a few holes into the balloon canopy and have it come down slowly >(assuming that there were no self destruct charges on the thing).
That way you get to see exactly what kit the thing was carrying give or
take a bump when the thing hits the deck uncontrolled. What they have
now is a kit of bits smashed into smithereens, spread over 50 square
miles and a much more difficult task of finding and reassembling the
various bits they can find. Bits of balloon envelope are not
particularly interesting - you want the kit that hung underneath it.
I presume the reason that they are finding a host of new things to shoot
down now is that NORAD now have the electronic signature of the kit that >these devices use to communicate back to their base.
We have to hope that the latest shoot downs are not of unmanned alien
probes or they might get a bit pissed off with us. I'm not sure I'd want
to encounter an annoyed alien species capable of interstellar travel.
make sure it impacted inside the 12-mile territorial limit. So a
pretty narrow window for action.
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 10:29:44 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
a diplomatic requirement to
make sure it impacted inside the 12-mile territorial limit. So aThe technical consideration is to dunk the thing into SHALLOW waters, to reduce recovery time and costs.
pretty narrow window for action.
The rule-bending that China does WRT the South China Sea makes any protest by them against a US attack on that balloon outside the 12-mile limit rather moot.
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 9:32:27 AM UTC-8, W wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 10:29:44 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: a diplomatic requirement to
make sure it impacted inside the 12-mile territorial limit. So aThe technical consideration is to dunk the thing into SHALLOW waters, to reduce recovery time and costs.
pretty narrow window for action.
The rule-bending that China does WRT the South China Sea makes any protest by them against a US attack on that balloon outside the 12-mile limit rather moot.As it was reported, the debre spread around in some 7 miles circle on the ocean floor!
I bet, from the impact the payload broke into million pieces.
Something hitting the water surface at 100 mile/hour is like hitting a concrete wall?
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 9:32:27 AM UTC-8, W wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 10:29:44 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> a diplomatic requirement to
make sure it impacted inside the 12-mile territorial limit. So aThe technical consideration is to dunk the thing into SHALLOW waters, to reduce recovery time and costs.
pretty narrow window for action.
The rule-bending that China does WRT the South China Sea makes any protest by them against a US attack on that balloon outside the 12-mile limit rather moot.
As it was reported, the debre spread around in some 7 miles circle on the ocean floor!
I bet, from the impact the payload broke into million pieces.
Something hitting the water surface at 100 mile/hour is like hitting a concrete wall?
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 2:11:18 PM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 9:32:27 AM UTC-8, W wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 10:29:44 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
a diplomatic requirement to
make sure it impacted inside the 12-mile territorial limit. So a pretty narrow window for action.The technical consideration is to dunk the thing into SHALLOW waters, to reduce recovery time and costs.
The search area has been narrowed to a square mile, in less than 50 feet of water.The rule-bending that China does WRT the South China Sea makes any protest by them against a US attack on that balloon outside the 12-mile limit rather moot.As it was reported, the debre spread around in some 7 miles circle on the ocean floor!
I bet, from the impact the payload broke into million pieces.
Something hitting the water surface at 100 mile/hour is like hitting a concrete wall?
Flimsy stuff would have been torn off during the descent, but the main chassis would fall more or less straight down, intact, at least until it hit the water.
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 12:35:34 PM UTC-8, W wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 2:11:18 PM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 9:32:27 AM UTC-8, W wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 10:29:44 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
a diplomatic requirement to
make sure it impacted inside the 12-mile territorial limit. So a pretty narrow window for action.The technical consideration is to dunk the thing into SHALLOW waters, to reduce recovery time and costs.
The search area has been narrowed to a square mile, in less than 50 feet of water.The rule-bending that China does WRT the South China Sea makes any protest by them against a US attack on that balloon outside the 12-mile limit rather moot.As it was reported, the debre spread around in some 7 miles circle on the ocean floor!
I bet, from the impact the payload broke into million pieces.
Something hitting the water surface at 100 mile/hour is like hitting a concrete wall?
Flimsy stuff would have been torn off during the descent, but the main chassis would fall more or less straight down, intact, at least until it hit the water.Ya'll know what happens when it hits Da water at high speed?
Dontcha?
😨😱
The rule-bending that China does WRT the South China Sea makes
any protest by them against a US attack on that balloon outside the
12-mile limit rather moot.
Well, they reported that the payload itself was intact. The debris
would include a lot of peripheral stuff like the balloon, lines, solar panels, etc.
But who knows how accurate the reports are.
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 10:32:27 AM UTC-7, W wrote:
The rule-bending that China does WRT the South China Sea makesSince the People's Republic of China is not a democracy, it is not
any protest by them against a US attack on that balloon outside the 12-mile limit rather moot.
really a government, but a criminal conspiracy. As it is written, "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed".
Diplomatic considerations are _practical_ considerations, not _moral_
ones, and so it might be considered prudent to avoid giving the PRC
an additional excuse for protest whether or not it is legitimate.
John Savard
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 12:35:34 PM UTC-8, W wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 2:11:18 PM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 9:32:27 AM UTC-8, W wrote:The search area has been narrowed to a square mile, in less than 50 feet of water.
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 10:29:44 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:As it was reported, the debre spread around in some 7 miles circle on the ocean floor!
a diplomatic requirement to
make sure it impacted inside the 12-mile territorial limit. So aThe technical consideration is to dunk the thing into SHALLOW waters, to reduce recovery time and costs.
pretty narrow window for action.
The rule-bending that China does WRT the South China Sea makes any protest by them against a US attack on that balloon outside the 12-mile limit rather moot.
I bet, from the impact the payload broke into million pieces.
Something hitting the water surface at 100 mile/hour is like hitting a concrete wall?
Flimsy stuff would have been torn off during the descent, but the main chassis would fall more or less straight down, intact, at least until it hit the water.
Ya'll know what happens when it hits Da water at high speed?
Dontcha?
??
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 1:26:02 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Well, they reported that the payload itself was intact. The debris
would include a lot of peripheral stuff like the balloon, lines, solar
panels, etc.
But who knows how accurate the reports are.
If the searchers have not yet found the payload, they are only speculating.
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 00:05:57 -0800 (PST), StarDust
wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 12:35:34 PM UTC-8, W wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 2:11:18 PM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 9:32:27 AM UTC-8, W wrote:The search area has been narrowed to a square mile, in less than 50 feet of water.
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 10:29:44 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:As it was reported, the debre spread around in some 7 miles circle on the ocean floor!
a diplomatic requirement to
make sure it impacted inside the 12-mile territorial limit. So aThe technical consideration is to dunk the thing into SHALLOW waters, to reduce recovery time and costs.
pretty narrow window for action.
The rule-bending that China does WRT the South China Sea makes any protest by them against a US attack on that balloon outside the 12-mile limit rather moot.
I bet, from the impact the payload broke into million pieces.
Something hitting the water surface at 100 mile/hour is like hitting a concrete wall?
Flimsy stuff would have been torn off during the descent, but the main chassis would fall more or less straight down, intact, at least until it hit the water.
Ya'll know what happens when it hits Da water at high speed?
Dontcha?
??
I'd expect it to stay pretty intact... just like compact parts of
airplanes (e.g. cockpits) do when they hit the water at high speed.
On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 9:47:22 AM UTC-8, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 00:05:57 -0800 (PST), StarDust
wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 12:35:34 PM UTC-8, W wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 2:11:18 PM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 9:32:27 AM UTC-8, W wrote:The search area has been narrowed to a square mile, in less than 50 feet of water.
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 10:29:44 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:As it was reported, the debre spread around in some 7 miles circle on the ocean floor!
a diplomatic requirement to
make sure it impacted inside the 12-mile territorial limit. So aThe technical consideration is to dunk the thing into SHALLOW waters, to reduce recovery time and costs.
pretty narrow window for action.
The rule-bending that China does WRT the South China Sea makes any protest by them against a US attack on that balloon outside the 12-mile limit rather moot.
I bet, from the impact the payload broke into million pieces.
Something hitting the water surface at 100 mile/hour is like hitting a concrete wall?
Flimsy stuff would have been torn off during the descent, but the main chassis would fall more or less straight down, intact, at least until it hit the water.
Ya'll know what happens when it hits Da water at high speed?
Dontcha?
??
I'd expect it to stay pretty intact... just like compact parts of
airplanes (e.g. cockpits) do when they hit the water at high speed.
I heard a report, if the balloon was a spy instrument, it would have a self destruct mechanism!
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 11:37:22 -0800 (PST), S
wrote:
On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 9:47:22 AM UTC-8, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 00:05:57 -0800 (PST), StarDust
wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 12:35:34 PM UTC-8, W wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 2:11:18 PM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 9:32:27 AM UTC-8, W wrote:The search area has been narrowed to a square mile, in less than 50 feet of water.
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 10:29:44 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:As it was reported, the debre spread around in some 7 miles circle on the ocean floor!
a diplomatic requirement to
make sure it impacted inside the 12-mile territorial limit. So a >> >> > > > pretty narrow window for action.The technical consideration is to dunk the thing into SHALLOW waters, to reduce recovery time and costs.
The rule-bending that China does WRT the South China Sea makes any protest by them against a US attack on that balloon outside the 12-mile limit rather moot.
I bet, from the impact the payload broke into million pieces.
Something hitting the water surface at 100 mile/hour is like hitting a concrete wall?
Flimsy stuff would have been torn off during the descent, but the main chassis would fall more or less straight down, intact, at least until it hit the water.
Ya'll know what happens when it hits Da water at high speed?
Dontcha?
??
I'd expect it to stay pretty intact... just like compact parts of
airplanes (e.g. cockpits) do when they hit the water at high speed.
I heard a report, if the balloon was a spy instrument, it would have a self destruct mechanism!That could be tricky to implement without just putting some explosives
in there, and I don't think they would do that, since the balloon
could fail and the payload drop gently to the ground. At which point
it would basically be a bomb waiting to blow up the kid or rancher who
came across it. Floating the balloon over a foreign country is a big
enough diplomatic snafu without people getting killed.
In any case, they are hardly dependent on recovering physical
material. They are obviously reluctant to go into details about
capabilities, but it's unrealistic to think that with their very high resolution images of the payload, probably other instrumental
information, and their access to transmitted data (even if encrypted)
that they don't have a pretty good idea about what it could do even
before they had parts to put on the bench. That's certainly one reason
they were comfortable letting it cross the country before shooting it
down.
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 11:37:22 -0800 (PST), StarDust <csoka01@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 9:47:22 AM UTC-8, Chris L Peterson wrote:
I'd expect it to stay pretty intact... just like compact parts of
airplanes (e.g. cockpits) do when they hit the water at high speed.
I heard a report, if the balloon was a spy instrument, it would have a self destruct mechanism!
That could be tricky to implement without just putting some explosives
in there, and I don't think they would do that, since the balloon
could fail and the payload drop gently to the ground. At which point
it would basically be a bomb waiting to blow up the kid or rancher who
came across it. Floating the balloon over a foreign country is a big
enough diplomatic snafu without people getting killed.
In any case, they are hardly dependent on recovering physical
material. They are obviously reluctant to go into details about
capabilities, but it's unrealistic to think that with their very high resolution images of the payload, probably other instrumental
information, and their access to transmitted data (even if encrypted)
that they don't have a pretty good idea about what it could do even
before they had parts to put on the bench. That's certainly one reason
they were comfortable letting it cross the country before shooting it
down.
On 15/02/2023 20:39, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 11:37:22 -0800 (PST), StarDust <csoka01@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 9:47:22 AM UTC-8, Chris L Peterson wrote:
I'd expect it to stay pretty intact... just like compact parts of
airplanes (e.g. cockpits) do when they hit the water at high speed.
I heard a report, if the balloon was a spy instrument, it would have a self destruct mechanism!
That could be tricky to implement without just putting some explosives
in there, and I don't think they would do that, since the balloon
could fail and the payload drop gently to the ground. At which point
it would basically be a bomb waiting to blow up the kid or rancher who
came across it. Floating the balloon over a foreign country is a big
enough diplomatic snafu without people getting killed.
The obvious way to do it would be explosives in the most sensitive parts
and a pressure sensor or GPS height trigger. Once it goes below 40,000'
feet it goes pop destroying the parts that you don't want anyone looking
at too closely and spreads debris over a much wider area on the ground.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 493 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 12:57:38 |
| Calls: | 9,711 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,740 |
| Messages: | 6,181,642 |