6 ms·

I saw it from my car today while driving before I knew it was going to be in my area. It was very visible to the naked eye. It was large enough that the perspec

I saw it from my car today while driving before I knew it was going to be in my area. It was very visible to the naked eye. It was large enough that the perspective made it seem a lot lower altitude than it actually was.

ineedasername 4y ago
I think it was at 60,000 ft. It’s got to be pretty damn big to be so obvious to casual ground observers. It will be very interesting to see, to the extent that details are released to the public, the parameters and specs of this thing.
za3faran 4y ago
Not sure what the CCP is thinking. Are they simply trying to instigate a response with such a brazen display?
- mike_d 4y ago
  As a data point: previously spotted surveillance blimps in the Asia Pacific theatre use a clear balloon. Either China wanted to see if it would be detected, or is woefully behind the US equivalents.
  - gonzo41 4y ago
    equivalents such as: the U2 spyplane, the BlackBird and all of the satellites they have. Oh and all the GlobalHawks.
    - irthomasthomas 4y ago
      U2: 1955 BlackBird: 1964 GlobalHawk: 1998 I wonder where the cutting edge is today?
- njharman 4y ago
  Its not like USA have never violated other nations air space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_aerial_reconnaissance_of_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_aerial_reconnais... but I guess we quit doing it to China https://www.nytimes.com/1971/07/29/archives/us-spy-flights-over-china-ended-to-avoid-incident-missions.html https://www.nytimes.com/1971/07/29/archives/us-spy-flights-o...
  - mlindner 4y ago
    Indeed, this kind of thing used to happen half a century ago before the invention of spy satellites and before Gary Powers got shot down over the Soviet Union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident Even the types of arguments made for this kind of thing are the same. > Initially, American authorities acknowledged the incident as the loss of a civilian weather research aircraft operated by NASA, but were forced to admit the mission's true purpose a few days later after the Soviet government produced the captured pilot and parts of the U-2's surveillance equipment, including photographs of Soviet military bases. Claiming "weather research" is basically one of the oldest lies on the books you can make which kind of concretes the fact that it wasn't for weather research.
  - Falkon1313 4y ago
    And until a couple of years ago, we also allowed it. >The Treaty on Open Skies establishes a program of unarmed aerial surveillance flights over the entire territory of its participants. The treaty is designed to enhance mutual understanding and confidence by giving all participants, regardless of size, a direct role in gathering information about military forces and activities of concern to them. >[...] >On 22 November 2020, United States official sources [...] announced that the six-month period was over and the U.S. was no longer a party to the Treaty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies
    - mint2 4y ago
      Important Note: China was never part of the treaty
- noduerme 4y ago
  To me it seems like it could also be a very cheeky response to the US declassifying all those UFO sightings and going "well, we really don't know what this is. Could be from China."
- cm2187 4y ago
  I am equally puzzled. But the recent aggressive statement by China [1] makes me think they are testing Biden's resolve. If you fly something in a foreign country's airspace, you don't get to complain that it has been shot down, particularly if it's just hardware. It looks like some sort of provocation to see how confrontational the US gets beyond cheap speech on TV. And I can't help suspecting that what made the US wait so long to shoot it is indecisiveness. It flew over huge areas of empty fields, it certainly isn't safety. [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chinese-spy-balloon-montana-explosion-live-tracker-b2275770.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chinese-sp...
  - jcynix 4y ago
    >It flew over huge areas of empty fields, it certainly isn't safety. Ok, but having it drop into water should increase the chance to retrieve less damaged parts to investigate then. I'd call this thoughtful, not indecivise.
    - cm2187 4y ago
      Water will behave like concrete to an object of the size and weight of a car dropping at high speed (which seems to be the payload minus the solar panels). You can just see what happened to planes that crashed into water head on. And they are claiming it was for safety purposes.
      - xattt 4y ago
        Pictures from the ground showed structures like solar panels. If anything, the panels would act as sails and slow the fall and impact into the water.
        cm2187 4y ago
        Even if they had the strength, it would rotate to minimize air resistance.
        sandworm101 4y ago
- OJFord 4y ago
  Russia frequently has military jets head for the UK, as I understand it just to test reaction time. (E.g. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/raf-ukraine-russia-war-b2006812.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/raf-ukraine-... as a search result, I haven't read) I assume this is something similar, just more to assess what the response is than how quick a known response is.
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    But to be fair, this sort of game is going on since the cold war in both directions.
    - OJFord 4y ago
      Sure, I didn't mean to be 'unfair' or to make too much of it (it hits the news every time, as though it's at all likely it would've been a genuine threat) - just to offer another example of something I assume is similar in motive.
- supportlocal4h 4y ago
  When I first heard of the balloon I thought it was brilliant. I am always amused at relatively cheap ideas that cost your opponent a lot. I figured this would cost the U.S. a lot. Even the President might waste 20 minutes with 15 highly paid experts being briefed on the balloon. It sounds like I was wrong about that. News reports stated the President was receiving regular ballon briefings. I'm sure resources were diverted to get close video of the payload. Rooms full of people were tasked to analyze whether object 47 was a camera and if so what type of lens it was fitted with and what were its capabilities. Could object 117 be used to inject colored smoke into lower altitude air streams? What effect might that have on our already reduced chicken population? How much did th U.S. spend to shoot this thing down, or even just to make the decision whether to shoot it down? If we take the names out of the story, it might look different to U.S. fans. If one country could spend, say, $5000 on a toy project that would cause a $5000000 response, that seems like a great strategy. For instance, Ukraine would love to spend $5000 on the edge of Crimea that would be this distracting to Russia.

ineedasername 4y ago

I think it was at 60,000 ft. It’s got to be pretty damn big to be so obvious to casual ground observers. It will be very interesting to see, to the extent that details are released to the public, the parameters and specs of this thing.

za3faran 4y ago

Not sure what the CCP is thinking. Are they simply trying to instigate a response with such a brazen display?

mike_d 4y ago
As a data point: previously spotted surveillance blimps in the Asia Pacific theatre use a clear balloon. Either China wanted to see if it would be detected, or is woefully behind the US equivalents.
- gonzo41 4y ago
  equivalents such as: the U2 spyplane, the BlackBird and all of the satellites they have. Oh and all the GlobalHawks.
  - irthomasthomas 4y ago
    U2: 1955 BlackBird: 1964 GlobalHawk: 1998 I wonder where the cutting edge is today?
njharman 4y ago
Its not like USA have never violated other nations air space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_aerial_reconnaissance_of_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_aerial_reconnais... but I guess we quit doing it to China https://www.nytimes.com/1971/07/29/archives/us-spy-flights-over-china-ended-to-avoid-incident-missions.html https://www.nytimes.com/1971/07/29/archives/us-spy-flights-o...
- mlindner 4y ago
  Indeed, this kind of thing used to happen half a century ago before the invention of spy satellites and before Gary Powers got shot down over the Soviet Union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident Even the types of arguments made for this kind of thing are the same. > Initially, American authorities acknowledged the incident as the loss of a civilian weather research aircraft operated by NASA, but were forced to admit the mission's true purpose a few days later after the Soviet government produced the captured pilot and parts of the U-2's surveillance equipment, including photographs of Soviet military bases. Claiming "weather research" is basically one of the oldest lies on the books you can make which kind of concretes the fact that it wasn't for weather research.
- Falkon1313 4y ago
  And until a couple of years ago, we also allowed it. >The Treaty on Open Skies establishes a program of unarmed aerial surveillance flights over the entire territory of its participants. The treaty is designed to enhance mutual understanding and confidence by giving all participants, regardless of size, a direct role in gathering information about military forces and activities of concern to them. >[...] >On 22 November 2020, United States official sources [...] announced that the six-month period was over and the U.S. was no longer a party to the Treaty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies
  - mint2 4y ago
    Important Note: China was never part of the treaty
noduerme 4y ago
To me it seems like it could also be a very cheeky response to the US declassifying all those UFO sightings and going "well, we really don't know what this is. Could be from China."
cm2187 4y ago
I am equally puzzled. But the recent aggressive statement by China [1] makes me think they are testing Biden's resolve. If you fly something in a foreign country's airspace, you don't get to complain that it has been shot down, particularly if it's just hardware. It looks like some sort of provocation to see how confrontational the US gets beyond cheap speech on TV. And I can't help suspecting that what made the US wait so long to shoot it is indecisiveness. It flew over huge areas of empty fields, it certainly isn't safety. [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chinese-spy-balloon-montana-explosion-live-tracker-b2275770.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chinese-sp...
- jcynix 4y ago
  >It flew over huge areas of empty fields, it certainly isn't safety. Ok, but having it drop into water should increase the chance to retrieve less damaged parts to investigate then. I'd call this thoughtful, not indecivise.
  - cm2187 4y ago
    Water will behave like concrete to an object of the size and weight of a car dropping at high speed (which seems to be the payload minus the solar panels). You can just see what happened to planes that crashed into water head on. And they are claiming it was for safety purposes.
    - xattt 4y ago
      Pictures from the ground showed structures like solar panels. If anything, the panels would act as sails and slow the fall and impact into the water.
      - cm2187 4y ago
        Even if they had the strength, it would rotate to minimize air resistance.
      - sandworm101 4y ago
OJFord 4y ago
Russia frequently has military jets head for the UK, as I understand it just to test reaction time. (E.g. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/raf-ukraine-russia-war-b2006812.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/raf-ukraine-... as a search result, I haven't read) I assume this is something similar, just more to assess what the response is than how quick a known response is.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  But to be fair, this sort of game is going on since the cold war in both directions.
  - OJFord 4y ago
    Sure, I didn't mean to be 'unfair' or to make too much of it (it hits the news every time, as though it's at all likely it would've been a genuine threat) - just to offer another example of something I assume is similar in motive.
supportlocal4h 4y ago
When I first heard of the balloon I thought it was brilliant. I am always amused at relatively cheap ideas that cost your opponent a lot. I figured this would cost the U.S. a lot. Even the President might waste 20 minutes with 15 highly paid experts being briefed on the balloon. It sounds like I was wrong about that. News reports stated the President was receiving regular ballon briefings. I'm sure resources were diverted to get close video of the payload. Rooms full of people were tasked to analyze whether object 47 was a camera and if so what type of lens it was fitted with and what were its capabilities. Could object 117 be used to inject colored smoke into lower altitude air streams? What effect might that have on our already reduced chicken population? How much did th U.S. spend to shoot this thing down, or even just to make the decision whether to shoot it down? If we take the names out of the story, it might look different to U.S. fans. If one country could spend, say, $5000 on a toy project that would cause a $5000000 response, that seems like a great strategy. For instance, Ukraine would love to spend $5000 on the edge of Crimea that would be this distracting to Russia.