7 ms·

i don't get why more folks aren't just going for the much cheaper option like this https://www.solaris-suborbital.space/ https://www.solaris-suborbital.space/

jacobgkau 7mo ago
There might be less societal objection to "satellites in space orbiting the planet" than to "planes flying continuously over the same area," even if both can be used for similar purposes. I'd assume it'd also be easier to disrupt suborbital systems like that than satellites, but I could be wrong.
adolph 7mo ago
That looks like a very cool option and effort. Like the Chinese balloons that overflew the US in the last (few?) years, it would likely be challenging to shoot down. Otoh, it might cause some diplomatic disagreements about overflight. There are a number of competing theories in international law, with varying criteria, to delineate the upper limit delineating airspace versus outer space. This debate is unsettled. [0] There may also be some technical challenges having to do with beamforming rf to the vehicle. Starshield like Starlink has the predictability of orbital vehicles for tracking. It would be interesting to understand how a ground station focuses on the solar glider. 0. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1204 https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/97801992316...
- triage8004 7mo ago
  Found those balloons very strange, hope they were up to something nice
  - The_President 7mo ago
    Probably silently dispersing an exothermic surprise.
ExpertAdvisor01 7mo ago
Because they will be destroyed immediately
- nine_k 7mo ago
  To shoot something down at 70,000 ft (21 km) all you need is a conventional military jet fighter, and a long-range rocket, or even a MiG-31 with a conventional cannon. At best you can make these birds cheaper than the rocket + flight time. Something that flies at the upper edge of the stratosphere, at 40-50 km (160,000 ft) would be hard to reach with currently available means. You can of course fire a THAAD at it, but you can fire a THAAD at a Starlink satellite as well.
  - pacificmint 7mo ago
    > you can fire a THAAD at a Starlink satellite as well. You can fire a THAAD at one Starlink satellite, but probably not at 8000 of them. For comparison we’re currently producing THAAD interceptors at a rate of 96 a year (though Lockheed is aiming to increase it to 400).
    - nine_k 7mo ago
      Exactly; it's a limited and very expensive capability. Nobody would want to spend it on a $100k stratospheric flying vehicle, if the latter existed. It does not exist though, if you do not count weather balloons.
  - ExpertAdvisor01 7mo ago
    The f-22 balloon kill was at the same height as the altitude quoted on their website . Like you said either any fighter jet + missile or an high altitude jet + auto cannon will shoot it down reliably. This is probably a good solution for redundancy if you already have air superiority.
- The_President 7mo ago
  They won’t be shot down over land without debris falling to the ground.

jacobgkau 7mo ago

There might be less societal objection to "satellites in space orbiting the planet" than to "planes flying continuously over the same area," even if both can be used for similar purposes. I'd assume it'd also be easier to disrupt suborbital systems like that than satellites, but I could be wrong.

adolph 7mo ago

That looks like a very cool option and effort. Like the Chinese balloons that overflew the US in the last (few?) years, it would likely be challenging to shoot down. Otoh, it might cause some diplomatic disagreements about overflight. There are a number of competing theories in international law, with varying criteria, to delineate the upper limit delineating airspace versus outer space. This debate is unsettled. [0] There may also be some technical challenges having to do with beamforming rf to the vehicle. Starshield like Starlink has the predictability of orbital vehicles for tracking. It would be interesting to understand how a ground station focuses on the solar glider. 0. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1204 https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/97801992316...

triage8004 7mo ago
Found those balloons very strange, hope they were up to something nice
- The_President 7mo ago
  Probably silently dispersing an exothermic surprise.

ExpertAdvisor01 7mo ago

Because they will be destroyed immediately

nine_k 7mo ago
To shoot something down at 70,000 ft (21 km) all you need is a conventional military jet fighter, and a long-range rocket, or even a MiG-31 with a conventional cannon. At best you can make these birds cheaper than the rocket + flight time. Something that flies at the upper edge of the stratosphere, at 40-50 km (160,000 ft) would be hard to reach with currently available means. You can of course fire a THAAD at it, but you can fire a THAAD at a Starlink satellite as well.
- pacificmint 7mo ago
  > you can fire a THAAD at a Starlink satellite as well. You can fire a THAAD at one Starlink satellite, but probably not at 8000 of them. For comparison we’re currently producing THAAD interceptors at a rate of 96 a year (though Lockheed is aiming to increase it to 400).
  - nine_k 7mo ago
    Exactly; it's a limited and very expensive capability. Nobody would want to spend it on a $100k stratospheric flying vehicle, if the latter existed. It does not exist though, if you do not count weather balloons.
- ExpertAdvisor01 7mo ago
  The f-22 balloon kill was at the same height as the altitude quoted on their website . Like you said either any fighter jet + missile or an high altitude jet + auto cannon will shoot it down reliably. This is probably a good solution for redundancy if you already have air superiority.
The_President 7mo ago
They won’t be shot down over land without debris falling to the ground.