they don’t know what’s in it or what it will do when it hits the ground.
I'm guessing that it's Phileas Fogg.
What an ingenious thing for them to do. Cheap as chips, as in your face as you can get, and almost a waste of time to shoot down. In fact would a missile just pass straight through it?
I imagine it will have some form of thrust system on it ?
satellites can stay in one place, too. it’s called a geostationary orbit
though for all i know this may mean that it stays still while the earth rotates. i don’t know anything about satellites.
I’m guessing that it’s Phileas Fogg.
i’m picturing a skeleton dressed as a victorian gentleman. this would be a pretty fun ruse.
I hope they burst it and it just has a massive waving cat inside it. Epic troll from China
satellites can stay in one place, too. it’s called a geostationary orbit.
which is achieved by setting the distance from earth to be a specific figure, so that its orbit time is equal to one day - and therefore its always above one point.
This distance is a long way further out than other satellites, and this obviously only works over the equator.
Geostationary and geosynchronous are matched orbit rotation satellites. The altitude is around 36k km. The closer you get to the planet the faster you have to go to maintain orbit. You can see why something at 100km altitude could provide better images than even a LEO satellite at 2000km.
EDIT - Geostationary is specific to equatorial orbits, geosynchronous is the same altitude, but with varying inclination.
@Daffy appears to be yet another expert breaking cover on STW :0)
He might well be or he might just subscribe to Sky At Night mag. 😀
Geostationary satellites are not that useful for spying though, unless what you want to film happens to be sat directly underneath - you're a long way away (compared to MEO or LEO) and the angle gets more acute the further you want to focus away from the equator.
Geostationary is specific to equatorial orbits, geosynchronous is the same altitude, but with varying inclination.
So what is the one where they follow the special forces operatives on their missions and display the live video footage in the White House situation room?
thanks for the info. interesting stuff
I guess one advantage of a balloon is that, compared to a satellite, it’s fairly stationary, so can observe the same target continuously.
Geosynchronous satellites are, in effect, stationary over a point on earth.
So what is the one where they follow the special forces operatives on their missions and display the live video footage in the White House situation room?
You can do that with Geostationary, just need a pretty decent power source for the uplink, eg relay via a Helicopter / Humvee with a big dish on it...
So what is the one where they follow the special forces operatives on their missions and display the live video footage in the White House situation room?
Almost certainly drones.
That's blown it, Antony Blinken's visit to China is now up in the air due to the violation of US airspace
The US Naval Institute shared a story today about the USS New York attempting to shoot a Japanese balloon weapon down in 1945. The navigator eventually realised that they were shooting at Venus
There was also the battle of Los Angeles.
Which was probably started by the sighting of a weather balloon and then turned into a free for all.
Can’t they dig out the kit from Reagan’s star wars programme? It must be just lying somewhere in a storage facility just waiting for a moment such as this
Obviously you’d also need a big net to catch the debris ..
I would think a grappling hook thrown from a C130 or similar could snag it, then just tow it to where ever you want to land it.
To some extent I'd assume shooting it down would be a bit pointless, whatever intelligence it's already gathered will probably have been beamed back to China already, and you'd maybe expect the Chinese to set any super sensitive components to self destruct below a certain altitude just to be sure.
I'm guessing they'll pop it once it drifts out over the ocean and maybe try to track and recover it using the navy, it might come down more intact that way, rather than sending it tumbling into some trees or a logger's cabin to get all smashed up in Montana...
They might just be probing to see what response the Americans give to something like this, any intelligence gathered would just be a secondary goal...
The US will have briefed on this as it's been sighted by so many Americans and discussed online, if they wanted to shoot it down they could pretty easily, send up an F22 and it'll do the job, but as others say, probably pointless now, they've probably been tracking it, same as a satellite to make sure whatever it's got in its field of view is secured prior to it arriving oversight.
So what is the one where they follow the special forces operatives on their missions and display the live video footage in the White House situation room?
Those would be the KH-10 and KH-11 Kennen satellites. Essentially a Hubble space telescope pointing at the earth and at a lower altitude of around 300-400km.
Missions are often planned for when one of the satellites will be overhead. KH-11s can be restasked - moved to other orbital tracks, but it’s costly and a limited resource now the shuttle is out of service.
KH-11s we’re designed around the shuttle in the same way the KH-10s actually sized the shuttle.
KH-11 images are very very rarely released - I think only Trump has done so. Their capabilities are…incredible.
To some extent I’d assume shooting it down would be a bit pointless, whatever intelligence it’s already gathered will probably have been beamed back to China already
Especially if it helps to confirm China's claim that it is civilian airship used for meteorological research which deviated from its route because of bad weather.
Why would the Chinese choose to leave it where it is if it has already completed its intelligence gathering? And why would the US not attempt to shoot it down anyway if it represented a serious threat?
And I don't understand how the United States feel they can justify their alleged outrage over the incident. At 60,000 feet it is apparently well above anything that would interfere with US airspace, and whilst I understand that the US doesn't like to be spied on I don't see how doing it from a satellite 200 miles up is somehow more morally justified and not a problem.
I can't imagine that this more than a one of incident, it is clearly not spying at its stealthiest. Presumably nothing like this will happen again anytime soon, so just a lot of fuss for political capital no doubt.
LOL! Problem with USA is that they can do that to others but not others to them.
USA is repeating the same the history of past empire building but in more in tune with time and technology. Story line is the same. A modern form of imperialism in the name of saving the world (didn't we hear that before?). Never can human being learned no matter how they tried.
The moment I see that news, the song "Eye In The Sky" by Alan Parsons Project comes to mind. LOL! (check the lyrics out) Spooky innit.
When the real war starts they will all fight blind (spy satellite), deaf (communication) and mute (infrastructure).
I really hope I live to see the destruction of the world with a cup of coffee and smoking my cigarette while leaving my shadow behind on the wall (the shadow of incineration) when the bright light flash in the sky.
Some reasons whyy this isn't such a bad way to spy on your foes:
1. Cheap
2. Steerable by varying the height to move with wind at differing atmospheric layers.
3. Too high to be shot down, much higher than fighters can reach, and air-to-air missiles are designed to shoot down other aircraft at similar heights, not something half way to space.
4. Ground based weaponry, guns, couldn't hit it, and surface to air missiles don't have the altitude, or targeting capability.
5. Much better resolution images with cheaper sensors than satellite deployed kit.
6. Long loiter time.
7. Difficult to spot with naked eye, yes we have been shown photos, but from very very good cameras no doubt.
8. Difficult to detect with air search radar, these are looking for big chunks of metal, not a plastic bag of gas, and a small bundle of electronics.
9. Deniability, could be fitted with off the shelf components that can do the job.
... I could go on.
Another theory, and I'm guessing here:
This has been going on for a long time, and the Americans know this. They have spotted this one at a much lower altitude than previously, thereby indicating that it's failing.
The US is worried it'll land in someone's backyard and be recognisable as a Chinese spying device. That will alarm all the rednecks, who will be kick up a storm about how the Democrats can't even keep them safe from balloons.
So, by acting all alarmed and worried it'll be played as the first time the Chinese have done this type of intelligence gathering.
Some reasons whyy this isn’t such a bad way to spy on your foes:
They are up against the Chinese who are not their like minded foes.
They can read and learn as much Sun Tze as possible but he is Not the greatest of the military strategies in his time. He might be victorious in many battles and wars but certainly not the greatest.
Another theory, and I’m guessing here:
My guess is that the Chinese deliberately let them spot it just to send a message they don't need high tech weapons.
One down - which still leaves another reported to be somewhere over the Brazilian coast.
It's reportedly been shot down over the Atlantic on the US east coat, which is exactly where I'd have shot it down if I wanted to retrieve the payload relatively intact...
I think this might have given the location away
Forgive my ignorance but how would the Chinese know where the balloon would even go with any degree of accuracy?
I was wondering that, but a news item about it pointed out that it was steerable.
There are American Idiots<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">™ © ® who are seriously considering shooting the bloody thing down with AR15’s. It’s being pointed out that a) it’s at 60,000ft, they’ve no chance of hitting it, and b) what goes up must come down. Somewhere.</span>
That altitude precludes most lasers, it’s only the latest directed energy weapons that might have the ability to target it at that altitude, and most of those are ship-mounted. Land-based lasers aren’t, AFAIK, able to elevate to vertical, they’re intended to target incoming missiles and drones, and low-flying aircraft.
There was a military person on CNN explaining the dangers of shooting it down over land due to its size and the falling debris causing damage or harm, apparently, it was the size of 3 buses. He also stated it wouldn't gather any more information than current Chinese spy satellites over these areas.
I know of at least one “reported” instance of something at a MUCH higher altitude being targeted by a ground based laser.
Lasers on the ground repeatedly target receivers on the moon. Surprisingly, these are remarkably low powered. A mere 250W laser can melt titanium at short distances and do so in milliseconds. A 7kW laser can melt though 10mm of steel at a distance of 10s of meters. We have both 30 and 60kW lasers available at work, these are commercially available.
I can transmit enough power via an ingested laser delivery system to keep a small aircraft in flight indefinitely and can do so at over 100km away and at sea level.
Modern lasers have tremendous power and when coupled to different types of lasers either in parallel on concentricity have almost unbelievable capabilities. Modern electronics and multi-prism targeting and focussing systems give amazing accuracy.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s no Death Star, but against a thin skinned target…
3. Too high to be shot down, much higher than fighters can reach, and air-to-air missiles are designed to shoot down other aircraft at similar heights, not something half way to space.
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64524105.amp
You were saying?
3. Too high to be shot down, much higher than fighters can reach, and air-to-air missiles are designed to shoot down other aircraft at similar heights, not something half way to space.
As I understand it, missiles can exchange range and launch speed for altitude. If they are launched from 60,000 feet at Mach 2.5 and aimed at a low-flying target, they will have a lot of energy and longer range. If they are launched from a helicopter at ground level against a fast high-flying target, the range will be much shorter because they have to climb to altitude and accelerate to high speed to catch the target. From that news story, the missile was launched from an F-22, which I think can easily fly at Mach 2.5 at 60,000 feet. Against a nearly stationary target, it should be able to zoom to 100,000 feet or so.
An F-22 jet fighter engaged the high-altitude balloon with one missile - an AIM-9X Sidewinder
However, the news story says it was a Sidewinder, which is heat-seeking. I'm amazed that the balloon would have enough of a heat signature to get a lock on. I would have assumed a radar guided AMRAAM would have been used.
However, the news story says it was a Sidewinder, which is heat-seeking. I’m amazed that the balloon would have enough of a heat signature to get a lock on. I would have assumed a radar guided AMRAAM would have been used.
Indeed, but it's an IR homing missile, so it would have had a signature, even if it was radiated from being exposed to the sun.
We'll also never likely know what sort of signature the kit strapped under it was producing either.
Needless to say, it was engaged in a way many of our experts here said it couldn't be.
Needless to say, it was engaged in a way many of our experts here said it couldn’t be.
Are you questioning the expertise of STWers? How very dare you?
There’s no explosion from the missile impact, there’s a trail and then the balloon starts venting. It looks very much like they intentionally punctured the balloon , that way the balloon’s own drag will slow the descent of the payload meaning there’s more to recover. Given the short range of the engagement and the slow speed and little manoeuvring of the target, the missile could’ve been simply fired along an intercept vector intended to physically hit and puncture the balloon. I think the reports stated that the F22 had reached altitude parity with the balloon, so just a straightforward shot?
I reckon you can see an explosion.
the balloon’s own drag will slow the descent of the payload meaning there’s more to recover
Then they will be disappointed as you can clearly see the payload/solar panels falling away much faster than the balloon.
That said I would expect the interesting bits to be reasonably intact even after that fall - enough to get an idea of what it was doing anyway.
No warhead on the Sidewinder, according to this:
The Inside Story on the F-22's Chinese Spy Balloon Kill - YouTube
However, the news story says it was a Sidewinder, which is heat-seeking
It's reported as Sidewinder AIM9-X; the F22 and F35 have the capability to direct the missile after launch
AIM9-X can also be launched from the ground using the same capability against cruise missiles
I'm disappointed that the balloon wasn't brought down by an STWer on a parachute from space wielding an artisanal EDC knife in each hand 😀
I reckon you can see an explosion.
If you've seen footage of high altitude balloons just bursting, this was identical. Tiny bits of the balloon go everywhere they are under a lot of tension.
I see they're collecting the parts as we speak.
No doubt they'll add a few of their own so it could not be mistaken for anything other than a spy balloon.
Members of the public have been warn not to touch any pieces of the balloon which may be washed ashore as they will be tampering with a "federal investigation" :
I am not sure what they are investigating - it's a spy balloon innit?
It looks totally broken now.
