3 ms·
I don't think there's a way to capture a balloon at 80 000 ft of elevation. Also, balloons would be just about the worst way to reliably deliver a payload witho
by mardifoufs 4y ago
I don't think there's a way to capture a balloon at 80 000 ft of elevation. Also, balloons would be just about the worst way to reliably deliver a payload without risk of it coming back to you. And there's also the fact that it's a scenario that has never happened, and there's nothing that would lead us to believe it has any chance of happening.
- Laaas 4y agoSend up a similar balloon but with people.
- kjkjadksj 4y agoYou wouldn’t even need people, a drone would be fine
- kjkjadksj 4y agoEasy, you use another balloon to grapple it, reduce lift, and therefore bring it down in a controlled manner. Of course this takes engineering and thought versus using a missile we can readily reorder.
- dpkirchner 4y agoWonder how much time and money it would take to create a maneuverable balloon that could rise 80k feet and precisely make contact with another balloon (that may also have some maneuvering controls).
- akerl_ 4y agoAh yes, “easy”.
- mardifoufs 4y agoIt's not about thought and engineering. If it was actually useful to do that, the military would've had no problem developing a solution like that. In fact, air to air missiles are infinitely more complex and engineered than any grappling balloon could ever be. It's just that it makes no sense to build something that is completely useless, for a scenario that won't happen.
- maxerickson 4y agoThey wasted $500,000 on a missile when they could have spent billions on balloon force.
- Scalene2 4y agoWhat makes you think it was at anywhere near 80 000 ft?
- mardifoufs 4y agoMaybe I'm confusing this one with the other balloon earlier this month? I could swear one of them was that high.