Chinese "Spy Balloon" over CONUS.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Seems to me you support terrorism. I do not.

a reply to: Waterglass

It does?

May I ask why?

a reply to: InachMarbank

You may have intended sarcasm, but you actually got it pretty close to correct.

Look at that picture you posted. The light is primarily illuminating the left side of the balloon. That's not coming form inside it; it is a light source to its left. That may e the sun just after sunset, the moon, or could possibly be a spotlight from somewhere (although I don't think there was a spotlight at 60,000 feet), but it is most certainly NOT coming from inside the balloon or from the payload. It's ambient.

Translucence will also make ambient light appear brighter, as it by definition scatters light rays.

TheRedneck

a reply to: 1.618

Any chance that We the People out here in reality will get the.truth about that payload?

Nope. No chance at all. 0.000000000%.

Any detailed information would compromise national security. We know what our capabilities are and where our facilities are; China knows some of that just like we know some of their secrets. This was a fishing expedition to try and find out more. If the signal was jammed successfully, it would be crazy to tell the public what China was trying to find.

I already know enough from just listening to the briefings and knowing what tech is available to know all I need to know. Further details would just be an invitation to a military conflict with China.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Much like light cloud cover during a full moon has luminescent clouds. They do not have an internal light but appear to glow because of reflected sunlight from the moon.

Very cold nights with just the right amount of humidity can cause moon dogs, which are halos of ice crystals that are illuminated. It can also be done with the sun, called sun dogs and will have a rainbow effect from the actual light from the sun.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Am I missing something? China's satellites have tech that can view whatever an alleged spy balloon could view, correct? If so why bother sending spy balloons all over the world?

nypost.com...

a reply to: xuenchen

Senator Hank Johnson is wondering why the planes didn't tie ropes around it and pull it down intact

Someone needs to tell him because it would have caused Guam to tip over.

These people are our leaders?
TheRedneck

Interesting blog…
cliffmass.blogspot.com...

NOAA has a wonderful system called Hyplit that allows one to calculate air trajectories over time. (An air trajectory is the three-dimensional path of an air parcel over time). You can think of an air parcel as the air inside a balloon.

Hysplit allows one to calculate back-trajectories, which tell one where some air at a point came from. So we can start from a point at 60,000 ft over Montana and trace back the air reaching that point.

a reply to: Waterglass

LOL...
This is just embarrassing. Only an idiot believes the media, and the U.S. government's laughable story.

www.zerohedge.com...

a reply to: JohnThomas2

You can believe what you want. I was wrong about it traveling toward Minnesota; I apparently misread the prevailing wind data. But my analysis, other than that, is solid.

It was not photographed "close up" because we have precious few planes that can get "close up." We're talking about 11 miles above sea level; the air is thin up there. It's so thin that a plane would have to be moving extremely fast to get that high; only military fighter planes can do that, and even then barely. So you want a "close-up" picture taken at Mach 2 as the camera flies by? try taking a clear picture of a tree as you drive by at 60 mph... you can't even do that!

Using a helicopter is even more laughable. They can't get that high, because there's not enough air! Helicopters are not space vehicles! That balloon was flying at close to its maximum height to maintain buoyancy.

What the military has, is ground-based photographs, in high detail. They can take photographs of a nearby galaxy from a satellite; we can get high-def pictures at 60,000 feet. We haven't seen them and we're not going to. Why should we? You're thinking a helicopter can go to space! Are you now going to tell me you would know what you were looking at?

They also are able to monitor any signals emanating from it. Analysis of those signals tells us a lot. We may not know all the data (assuming encryption), but even with encryption one can see changes in the data as the balloon enters an area, and we already know what signals are present in that area for it to pick up. We can observe the antennae and get a rough idea of what frequency range it is listening for. We can analyze its movements and determine what it is interested in.

What we cannot determine from EM radiation or visual examination is whether or not it is "booby-trapped." Ever hear of an accelerometer? It's a tiny chip, so small most people do not have the ability to work with them directly (it's even hard for me with my equipment). Most people who use them use a "breakout board" so they can physically access the pins. It sits there and monitors acceleration, and it will work even if buried beneath a mass of other electronics or behind plating. If it detects a major change in readings, like from a shock or impact, that can then be used to trigger whatever the designers wanted it to trigger. That could be a gas or particle release (chemical/biological agent) or an explosive charge. And you wanted it shot down over land? With prevailing winds that would carry it further inland toward populated areas?

Thank GOD you're not in charge of these decisions! You'd kill us all!

I think they should have shot it down the moment it crossed into US air space and was identified as Chinese; that would have minimized public contact. But once it got further inland, the correct decision was to let it get over the Atlantic. We may have lost some info to China, but at least no one got hurt... yet.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JohnThomas2

You were talking about Helicopters. But no, the region where aircraft fly is generally lower than where 'weather balloons' hang about. Aircraft that fly anywhere near that height have to fly very, very fast because the air is very thin at those altitudes. Ask Zaph.

a reply to: quintessentone

Satellites cannot detect ground EM radiation like radio signals. Even if they could, they could not pinpoint where the signal is coming from. This thing was locating and identifying radio communication. It was not just taking pictures.

Folks around here have been beating aerial photography since helicopters came out. You really think the US government can't cover their installations with a camo tarp?

TheRedneck

a reply to: JohnThomas2

First of all, the only fantasy here is thinking a helicopter can maneuver at 60,000 feet. That was your assertion; not mine.

Secondly, you have demonstrated over and over that you have zero concept of physics or technological reality.

Thirdly, what have I parroted from the media? Have they talked about the thing being "booby-trapped"? I haven't heard it if they have. What MSM outlet has mentioned accelerometers? What MSM outlet has mentioned correlating radio communication signals with GPS data to triangulate position of targets?

I am a degreed electrical engineer with NASA research experience and my own personal lab. Who are you? Some guy posting on a web site?

TheRedneck

a reply to: JohnThomas2

A woman filmed an explosion over Billings, Montana back on the 3rd. DOD , sheriff and local government say they cant confirm anything.

Woman shares video of an 'explosion' in the sky above Montana

Possibly it was Superman or Wonder Woman and they had explosive diarrhea and released an excessive amount of CO2 so under the Green New Deal Biden had them shot down?

Or those pesky aliens from ET


I am also sure the USA sent a sniffer plane to see what was on board as in radioactive, EMP or bio weapon. Our father told us never believe everything that you read in the press or watch on TV.

a reply to: Waterglass

This has all been addressed in this thread.

And the others.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Red, it has been said in various briefings that this "balloon" was maneuverable. The Chinese even referred to it as an "airship"; which to me has a whole different meaning compared to a "balloon".

In my mind, balloons can "maneuver" up and down, and that's about it. (We've talked about this point before, but this is for those "just tuning in").

Now, I know, "consider the source", but a CNN article I read just today referenced an official who stated that this spy balloon had motors and propellers it could use to maneuver. In my book, that makes it a proper airship, if a relatively crudely designed one.

But beyond semantics, adding motors to drive props, at extremely high altitudes is a very power intense option.

Batteries add weight, and you would need lots of batteries to move a vehicle with as much aerodynamic drag as that balloon. Seriously, it's more of an Aerostat than an Airship. Batteries also do not like the cold, and it is very cold up there, especially when you're up there for days.


So, with your background, do you think our Chinese friends might have slipped a small RTG (Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator) on board their "Mystery Ship"?

Might go a long way to explain how this became such an international incident, and why the military was against shooting the balloon down over land (possibility of a "dirty bomb" -style radiological contamination scenario).

Imagine the public panic if that scenario had played out!

a reply to: TheRedneck

Oh, and you told Zaph that you thought it was some sort of "analog remote device"... no, it wasn't. It was an unguided missile, aimed visually. Just a big bullet from a bigger rifle, essentially. Analog is not used for remote applications... too unreliable.

So basically They 'Hip Fired ' a missile from the fighter ? I find that unlikely unless your getting this information from people in the Airforce who actually know.