Chinese surveillance balloon over US causes fearful gasbagging

A Chinese high-altitude spy balloon, spotted drifting over America, has caused concern about national security – though the US Department of Defense says it will not be shot down by F22s at this time. "The United States Government has detected and is tracking a high altitude surveillance balloon that is over the continental …

[Pascal Monett]

Why not shoot it down ?

The USA has a lot of empty space within its borders. Or mountains. Shoot it down when it gets over the Rockies, it'll hit a mountain peak nobody is on.

Obviously, if it lands in a city that would be bad, but surely it is possible to know how long it'll take to drop, what speed it's going at and estimate how heavy it is (they've already shot one down, so they have an idea), and calculate the right place to shred the balloon.

Then ban sales of helium to China. It's not like one more item on the list is going to spark WWIII.

[Potemkine!]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

What would be the point of shooting it down? It isn't like there wasn't any Chinese spy satellite flying over the US already, so I doubt this balloon collects more information, if it does any. This is not a Fu-Go ballon bomb

[NoneSuch]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

Shoot it down over US soil and see what its capabilities are. Then you'll know.

The Russians did that with Francis Gary Powers as I recall and they learned a LOT about US technology and methods.

Frankly, I'm amazed the yanks are showing restraint. "It's coming right for us...!"

[Trigonoceps occipitalis]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

When Garry Powers was shot down the USA learned a lot about the USSR's air defence capabilities (perhaps not the primary mission). The balloon may have been a lure to draw out the high level capabilities of the USA missile system.

[doublelayer]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

All you'd need in this case is a plane that can shoot at a target. I think China is already aware that the U.S. has planes with guns mounted on them. Not a lot can be learned from that.

[Orv]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

It's rather higher up than most of our planes normally fly.

[doublelayer]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

"It's rather higher up than most of our planes normally fly."

But not high enough that military planes can't fly there*, and I think China is also aware that we have high-altitude military planes. The point being that we don't need technology that China's not aware of to make a balloon fall down, so if it became necessary to take down the balloon without giving out any military secrets, it would be possible.

* The internet appears to be filled with copies of this article that don't mention the altitude, but other articles specify an altitude of 60,000 feet or 18 km. That's well above civilian air and routine military traffic, but several planes are capable of getting there and some are explicitly designed to do so.

[doublelayer]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

And, in case this needed proving, a plane has just gone there and fired a missile which took down the balloon. No experimental tech was needed and the balloon went down.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

the main reason it is still floating, In My Bombastic Opinion, is the BIDAS administration.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

Yeah, if Trump was in charge, he'd create a new anti ANTI-JINESE DEFENCE FARCE of Lawn Chair Larrys to go up there and shoot them down. (and with snazzy new uniforms with lots of gold braid too!)

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

Frankly, I'm amazed the yanks are showing restraint. "It's coming right for us...!"

Agreed :-)

"If you're not on your lawn getting noisy shots of every speck in the sky, you're missing out."

And with comments like that, there's probably a certain demographic taking potshots at any little speck in the sky in the belief they can see a fairly small "Chinese balloon" flying higher than most aircraft can go and their little pop guns have the range to hit it :-)

[KarMann]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

Pretty sure they meant pictures with lots of noise-to-signal ratio, rather than the other kind of 'noisy shots'. But, you might well be perfectly aware of that, and punning on it. If so, carry on, good sir.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

Yes, I did think of that as a possibility, then tried to put myself into the mindset of a "certain demographic" reading that same information and extrapolated from there :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

If they shot it down, they might end up proving themselves wrong as to its origin.

Perhaps they're trying to avoid that situation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

they could board it (Arrgh!) and swap the cargo for their own, then tow it further east. In due course... ;)

[cyberdemon]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

They have shot it down, but with such overkill that nobody will ever be able to prove anything either way.

Great job, team America!

[S4qFBxkFFg]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

Large balloons/airships are surprisingly difficult to shoot down. In WW1 it was discovered that exhausting a fighter aircraft's ammunition perforating the things simply doesn't cause enough leakage to deflate them before they complete their missions and return home. It was a different story once the fighters started carrying incendiary ammunition, but remember this was still when hydrogen was used to provide lift.

In summary, it would probably be necessary to use missiles, and that starts to become difficult to justify if the missiles cost multiples of the balloons.

(Unguided rockets might be a better option, but I don't think the fighters that go to those altitudes carry them as standard.)

[Neil Barnes]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

Sounds like a job for the SPB!

[trindflo]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

I'm wondering if lasers could be used to put sizeable holes in it that will release enough gas to bring it down ... for a soft landing to have a good look at it.

[Peter2]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

In WW1 it was discovered that exhausting a fighter aircraft's ammunition perforating the things simply doesn't cause enough leakage to deflate them before they complete their missions and return home.

Culminating in balloons being used in an offensive capacity during WW2 as part of Operation Outward, because somebody did the math and came to the conclusion that a balloon flying at low level did damage and it cost more to shoot them down then it did to launch them with a rudimentary payload. Hence just shy of a hundred thousand of them were tossed at occupied Europe when the wind was blowing the right way.

https://magazine.ieee-pes.org/september-october-2011/operation-outward/

[martinusher]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

This was developed from an accidental flyaway of a barrage balloon that trailed its steel cable after it. Caused all sorts of damage to the electrical distribution system on the Continent (due to the fault detection systems being designed to detect phase to ground faults, not phase to phase).

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

https://magazine.ieee-pes.org/september-october-2011/operation-outward/

Thanks, that was a fascinating read about something I'd not heard of before.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not shoot it down? Hydrogen? Falling Debris? Gravity returning all of your spent ammo for free?

I mean it MIGHT be full of helium. But hydrogen is cheaper, and offers slightly more lift.

If it's just a lifting bag style balloon you just might pop it, but gravity will take over at that point. If it is using airship skin like an aerostat balloon then it might take more of a pounding.

Looking at it's boom and panels, a first guess was a passive radar array, possibly to map out parts of the US air defense system. If that is the case, leaving the systems on idle while the balloon passes would deny them useful data. And they can always down the balloon later, but if anything goes wrong trying to down it, idiots will hang the whole thing on the crew and the rest of the government. And whatever makes up the payload of it, they probably can afford to just keep launching them.

Also from a tit for tat standpoint we could also feel free to send strings of these over Chinese airspace since that's apparently what everyone is doing now. Actually, since this was a "Civilian" launch, maybe we as non-government employees should start more closely examining the weather over Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang.

So plenty of good arguments for a wait and see for now. It will be interesting to see if they do take direct action, and if so, how. An unguided rocket with a safety fuse over soft ground or water would make some sense, following

[Binraider]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

One 20mm HE cannon round would do the job. Simple weapons attached to high performance platforms absolutely still have value. Perhaps more to the point of this story, is that the US sees no value in dissecting whatever the balloon has on board.

I'm just waiting for the conspiraloons to surface regarding avian flu or whatever...

[bombastic bob]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

China does not need a balloon to spread avian flu (or whatever).

All they need to do is accidentally leak it from their lab... and not tell anyone.

[the spectacularly refined chap]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

If memory serves they filled the guns with alternating regular/tracer rounds. The first to rip open the outer skin, the second to ignite the gas. Neither would do the job by itself.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

somewhat recently anti-satellite lasers have been tested...

I figure this might be a good exercise for testing one of those!

[Blazde]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

In WW1 it was discovered that exhausting a fighter aircraft's ammunition perforating the things simply doesn't cause enough leakage to deflate them before they complete their missions and return home. It was a different story once the fighters started carrying incendiary ammunition, but remember this was still when hydrogen was used to provide lift.

In summary, it would probably be necessary to use missiles, and that starts to become difficult to justify if the missiles cost multiples of the balloons.

WW1 fighters were using light machine guns (~8mm calibre solid metal) with very limited quantities of ammunition. An F22 has 20mm auto-cannons that (I presume) will fire all manner of modern custom high-explosive, shaped, piercing, shredding, incendiary, dousing, gluing, glitter-ball shells in anti-tank, anti-aircraft, and anti Chinese-weather-balloon flavours, and at close enough range the holes should join up into a huge tear anyway. They probably have shells that will take a selfie moments before impact and WhatsApp it to Xi.

It may well be safer and simpler to use missiles however (and target the flight control structures rather than the balloon itself). I doubt the cost will bother them too much. Just putting some F22s in the air is a big expense already, and they'd be in some increased danger of mishap flying close enough to use cannons.

Or the balloon may be above F22 altitude in which case they'll need missile to get the extra height. Maybe China is testing their high-altitude capability? Maybe the Yanks know they're being tested and that's why they don't want to shoot it down? Let's face it the whole 'we might injure someone' excuse it a little fishy coming from an organisation who's entire purpose revolves around injuring people.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

"dousing, gluing, glitter-ball shells" ... "They probably have shells that will take a selfie moments before impact and WhatsApp it to Xi."

You owe me a new keyboard. Well done.

[Petalium]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

Not only the ballon, the bullets used can cause some damage when they reach the ground, (and they can travel quite far)

[Lars]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

@Pascal Monett

The USA used to have more or less a monopoly on helium but that has changed.

Quoting the Wikipedia:

" In 2008, approximately 169 million standard cubic meters (SCM) of helium were extracted from natural gas or withdrawn from helium reserves with approximately 78% from the United States, 10% from Algeria, and most of the remainder from Russia, Poland and Qatar.[140] By 2013, increases in helium production in Qatar (under the company Qatargas managed by Air Liquide) had increased Qatar's fraction of world helium production to 25%, and made it the second largest exporter after the United States.[141] An estimated 54 billion cubic feet (1.5×109 m3) deposit of helium was found in Tanzania in 2016.[142] A large-scale helium plant was opened in Ningxia, China in 2020.".

[Sandtitz]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

"Use a high-service-ceiling, clamp-equipped helicopter to tow it away to the impound yard? The article didn't say whether or not the balloon was low-enough for that to work."

The article says:

"The balloon is known to be hovering at a higher altitude than commercial air traffic and is therefore not an immediate danger."

Helicopter altitude record is 12442m. Jets fly at that altitude and even higher, so if the balloons is deemed to be of not danger, it must be floating much higher than that.

[Anonymous Coward]

"altitude record" not cruising altitude

And, when it's decade old servers aren't crashing, we have a whole system to avoid airspace do problems like this, and a million other scenarios.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

60,000 feet, too high for helicopters. Jets with VTOL would have trouble at that altitude.

Better to shoot holes in the gas bag and as it deflates it will reduce altitude until it is recoverable (or crashes to the ground).

[Orv]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

When you're trying to shoot something down from that high up, you don't really get to pick exactly where it lands. Few parts of the US are actually completely unpopulated. There's also what happens to your stray bullets or missiles -- look up the "Battle of Palmdale" for an example of how this can go wrong.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

If you shoot a few small holes in the gas bag it will come down slowly enough to avoid damaging things.

Then we recover the payload and figure out what they hell they were up to.

[Except that the Bidas family has been taking CCP money for so long that their puppet-masters won't let them.]

(If the balloon goes over Texas, Gov, Abbott will probably shoot it down. Same for DeSantis in Florida.)

this most DEFINITELY fails the 'shoe on the other foot' test.

[Orv]

Re: Why not shoot it down ?

Something this big is going to do damage no matter how slowly it lands, unless it has the good luck to land in an open field. If it tangles with a high-voltage power line it's likely to black out power to tens of thousands of people.

No, if they want it they'll shoot it down over the ocean.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is symptomatic of the yawning "balloon gap" that has opened up since Biden took office. I'll bet they are using US helium, or even green hydrogen made with stolen western tech.

[MyffyW]

Hydrogen? Helium? I wouldn't rule out some devilment with a synthetic element 1-and-a-half knowing those cunning Chinese. We should be told...

[Retreats to her prepped bunker in ........ Montana.]

[anonymous boring coward]

Agreed. The balloon gap should be closed by a preemptive massive balloon release, overwhelming the enemy's balloon space.

And it's obviously all Biden's fault. And being nice to anyone with gender identity issues. The enemy takes advantage of such things.

(Sarc)

[Sceptic Tank]

99 Red Balloons

So I'm no meteorologist, but aren't air currents a somewhat unpredictable method of flying about? It sounds to me like sheer luck that it ended up over Hanna Montanna. And I'm guessing it wasn't launched from the front lawn of the White House, so what is the Strategic Air Command buying them if stuff like this can just drift over?

[Joe W]

Re: 99 Red Balloons

Well... Sort of. Looking at different maps of geopotential height you can see that there are different air flows at different altitudes, which does give you some limited control over where it will head. You can even use trajectory maps to map out where are balloon will end up before you launch it, and then determine the launch date. So some planning is possible. I'm pretty sure the USAF know about these tools, it's just basic meteorology.

Thing is, the Chinese have spy satellites in LEO, and these are more predictable for gathering intel - or at least I would think so. A balloon is way cheaper, though. Plus there's Google maps photos online...

[Dronius]

Re: 99 Red Balloons

Yup they're a bit vague & maybe that's the real purpose of the balloon;

It is possible that the owners don't want to be bluffed by potentially tampered information, so might check out the currents for themselves and get their own data to compare with officially published info.

After all if wargaming wanted to model chemical or radiation spread pathways across the US, then they'd need proper info on the latest trends.

[werdsmith]

Re: 99 Red Balloons

It need not be visual surveillance. The thing might be sniffing RF, particularly lower frequency localised RF that doesn't get though the ionosphere. Or several other things .

[werdsmith]

Re: 99 Red Balloons

In fact likely a test platform working as part of BeiDou-3 rollout.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: 99 Red Balloons

That's not crazy. That may not be ALL that it's doing, but it's more plausible then some of the other reasons that have been...

Crap

raised, brought up, floated, everything I think of to finish that sentence is still ending up as a pun.

[ThatOne]

Re: 99 Red Balloons

> The thing might be sniffing RF

Over a big part of the USA? Where is the Hindenburg-sized trailer balloon with the Petabyte storage? Without that they'd just learn there is a lot of RF traffic going on, which I guess they already knew...

IMHO this is just to annoy the US administration. It is possible that, much like the Sputnik 1 satellite, the only thing it carries is a $0.2 emitter going "ping!"... Despite its lack of any useful features, Sputnik had quite some success back then, remember?

[An_Old_Dog]

Re: 99 Red Balloons

Where is the Hindenburg-sized trailer balloon with the Petabyte storage?

They just store the data in The Cloud!

[Cav]

Re: 99 Red Balloons

Could you not send that data to one of those satellites we know they have? Just because the original signals they intercept can't get through the ionosphere that doesn't mean a signal from the balloon itself cannot. VHF or microwaves can do so.

[Anonymous Coward]

Riiight, you know this isn't 1993 right?

Like a palm full of 2tb MicroSD cards? You know the ones the size of a fingernail?

We might have needed a satellite that weighed a ton to do this decades ago, but there is more processing power in an Apple watch now.

[MyffyW]

Re: 99 Red Balloons

Hast du etwas Zeit für mich?

[imanidiot]

Re: 99 Red Balloons

For a high altitude balloon, using the jet stream and high altitude air currents makes it fairly predictable. High altitude winds and weather is fairly predictable and stable. Low altitude weather (clouds, winds, precipitation, etc) is far more chaotic and fast changing.

[seven of five]

How dare they!

Impudent, to do as the US does.

[Kevin McMurtrie]

The DoD should consider the dangers of rednecks trying to shoot it down themselves.

Should have worn a helmet icon? --->

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, that is more a local police kinda thing. The DoD should give a heads up to the police in the area so they can keep an eye out.

[TheInstigator]

Yet again - more proof that China needs to be obliterated in a nuclear armageddon

It wouldn't even be termed pre-emptive as if I were the head of a country I'd consider it an act of war if you flew something over in my airspace without my explicit permission - so just nuclear bomb them already! Or sanction them! Or put all Chinese in safety and security camps or ....

This really does feel like the US warmongering - in the same way they hyped up Iraq having WMDs - "Well China has been provoking us for absolutely forever, so it's only right we put this impudent foreigners in their place" - alternatively they're trying to talk a narrative into existance.

Huawei security concerns (nothing found), China trying to build advanced AI/military systems (so chips for use in EV cars also banned for export - just cause CHY-NA might launch a car at you!) - and now of course a spy ballooon.

I'm surprised the US doesn't just say CHY-NA has WMD (they do - nuclear weapons) and get a SEAL team in there to take them all out - it'd be a fabulous success and they can put it all over the news like the lunar landings. Biden will be sure to get re-elected.

[J__M__M]

Re: Yet again - more proof that China needs to be obliterated in a nuclear armageddon

Pentagon: It's just a balloon, don't worry about it.

You: WARMONGERING! LIKE IRAQ!

[TheInstigator]

Re: Yet again - more proof that China needs to be obliterated in a nuclear armageddon

I wouldn't say the Pentagon aren't worried about it - I'm sure they're monitoring it very carefully and have probably x-rayed it etc

It also gives the US an enormous propaganda coup - you are now already guilty and need to be proven innocent.

There was a recent case in the UK where a large number of Asian illegal immigrants died in the back of a container while illegally entering the country - the Chinese ambassador was summoned to help identify victims etc - lots of press about Chinese illegal immigrants etc - at which time it was found through further investigations that all the victims were Vietnamese ...

I'm not familiar with the particulars but I doubt there was an apology given, I'm pretty sure the British wouldn't even feel embarrassed at a mistake like that

[werdsmith]

Re: Yet again - more proof that China needs to be obliterated in a nuclear armageddon

As part of the trafficking / smuggling operation the victims were carrying some Chinese documentation. It's harder to claim asylum from Vietnam, because it is a benign country.

[TheInstigator]

Re: Yet again - more proof that China needs to be obliterated in a nuclear armageddon

It's quite easy to tell apart people that are from Vietnam and China - although maybe not dead I grant you!

[anonymous boring coward]

Re: Yet again - more proof that China needs to be obliterated in a nuclear armageddon

"and have probably x-rayed it etc"

Did they call in Superman for that?

[Jimmy2Cows]

Re: Yet again - more proof that China needs to be obliterated in a nuclear armageddon

Nah, don't you know, they have super-mega-ultra-top-secret-squirrel remote viewer x-raying technology. How could you not know? Everyone knows! Derived from that crashed alien spacecraft at Roswell, and testing massive doses of psychodelics on death row prisoners. Come on! Everyone knows this.

But don't worry, friends. 5 layers of highest quality aluminum* foil will block their nefarious acts and protect your brain from remote implantation of mind control devices. Don't you understand!?! They need the remote-x-ray tech to see inside our heads to ensure the mind control devices are correctly attached to our prefrontal cortex. Spying on spy balloons is all just a cover for their real actions.

* Yes, I said aluminum. All the best nut jobs use only the finest American aluminum. None of that European aluminium crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Yet again - more proof that China needs to be obliterated in a nuclear armageddon

You see, they already got you. Aluminum does nothing. What you need is actual tin foil. Tin is the metal you want to use to block the mind control/reading rays.

That is why it is all aluminum now. The Govs got everyone to switch to control people.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Yet again - more proof that China needs to be obliterated in a nuclear armageddon

I use lead foil, so I am safe from the govt x-raying my potatoes and secret recipe ribs

[TheInstigator]

Re: Yet again - more proof that China needs to be obliterated in a nuclear armageddon

You may jest, but others commenting on different posts have already mentioned possible use of EMP which is actually more what I was referring to - but I'm sure they have some method to see what devices are actually inside of the balloon - maybe by reading/listening to the emanations from the device

You'll have to excuse my choice of terminology - I'm not a spy so I have no idea what or how the US do what they do in such situations

[Alumoi]

Re: Yet again - more proof that China needs to be obliterated in a nuclear armageddon

Next timpe use the sarcasm tag, many missed it.

[Cav]

Re: Yet again - more proof that China needs to be obliterated in a nuclear armageddon

It wasn't sarcasm. It was hyperbole but the rest of the post makes it clear that it's nonsense.

[TheInstigator]

Re: Yet again - more proof that China needs to be obliterated in a nuclear armageddon

Ha - you say that but I fully support equal opportunities - I am well aware that even in the best case scenario I think China would manage to launch at least 1 or 2 (not based on any known fact) nuclear missiles before any landed on it - I don't mind dying in a nuclear blast - as long as the rest of the world also dies in a nuclear conflagration.

Imagine walking on a field of glass looking at the devastation afterwards ...

[mevets]

Re: Yet again - more proof that China needs to be obliterated in a nuclear armageddon

Where would the fun be in alerting them? Over time, it is impetus for reactionary knobs to turn down their volume.

[Cav]

Re: Yet again - more proof that China needs to be obliterated in a nuclear armageddon

"This really does feel like the US warmongering". You can't really be that dense?

Sounds more like you are one of those ignorant youngsters who hates the West and refuses to believe that a totalitarian, oppressive regime would do anything against us. Either that you are a member of the CPC.

[TheInstigator]

Re: Yet again - more proof that China needs to be obliterated in a nuclear armageddon

If you read some of my other posts I actually state "out loud" that I'm not saying China is great - and I'd prefer to live in the West than in China - but to think the West is pure and perfect and beyond reproach in all things is foolhardy - although an easier course to choose than to confront the truth's of (for example) what the British Empire actually meant to many of the subjects - or how the Hong Kong became a colony etc

The fact that the US and UK gets along so well together - especially given the historical context of hte US being founded as an act of insurrection against the UK etc etc - I don't see the USA giving back the entire land mass to the Native Americans, or Australia to the Aborigines for example. I don't see the British acted very honourably in Northern Ireland etc - the list goes on

My point being - humans aren't perfect - and given countries are collections of humans - neither can ANY country.

However I grant you - it is easy to set up "enemies of the state" and direct people's attentions to that enemy in the same way that it has been done throughout history.

Given China has satellites - some of which are undoubtedly spy satellites I have no idea whey they're not using those - but I'm pretty sure there's stuff going on that we're not being told about/aware of.

[herman]

Difficult

It is actually very difficult to shoot a blimp down. It is not under pressure and will not pop like rubber balloon. One can make lots of holes in a blimp and it will just keep floating with the gas slowly deteriorating. It is best to just wait for it to come down by itself.

[localzuk]

Re: Difficult

Unless they use hydrogen of course. Those are really easy to bring down.

[MyffyW]

Re: Difficult

Not so much - early British attempts at downing Zeppelins in WW1 were frustrated by the bullets going straight through the balloon skin and out the other side, with just modest loss of gas. The spectacular - oh the humanity! - explosions we recall were usually near the ground, where boring things like electro-static discharge (or just being in New Jersey) caused problems.

[I must for the sake of balance reflect that there are some lovely part of New Jersey. Cape May. Wildwood. The ice cream shop Duffers Challenge]

[Gary Stewart]

Re: Difficult

Use tracer rounds?

[doublelayer]

Re: Difficult

With just bullets, kind of hard. With bullets and something that can start fires, a bit easier. We have lots of weapons that can start fires these days, and in fact a lot of weapons that have specifically been designed to try not to start a fire this time, so I think we may have more options on downing something filled with hydrogen if it ever shows up.

[localzuk]

Re: Difficult

Eh? Referring to weaponry from literally over 100 years ago, vs the variety of incendiary weaponry we have today?

[imanidiot]

Re: Difficult

Judging from the photo's that looks very much like a standard latex weather balloon (but probably with a pressure regulating equipment in the neck instead of just being tied shut like a standard weather balloon.) If it's not latex but plastic foil it'll be so thin it would probably burst in a similar manner if perforated too. But it's probably designed for fast ditching, ie, there is no parachute and it's impossible to predict where something is going to land from that high up accurately enough. And "ehh, it's mostly empty here so we can probably risk it" is not good enough. As El Regs SPB proved long ago, things like this are magnetically attracted to whatever they're least supposed to hit.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Difficult

come down by itself, yes. and with large enough holes, that happens faster

[Neil Barnes]

Has anyone checked

To see where Richard Branson is?

[David 132]

Re: Has anyone checked

As the CCP are involved, a better question would be: has anyone checked that there isn't a small bear-of-Very-Little-Brain hanging underneath the balloon?

[Wellyboot]

Re: Has anyone checked

with a little ingenuity it should be possible to fly another balloon directly below this one with a very big picture of the bear on top*.

The opportunity for trolling the operator is very tempting.

* or possibly something else :)

[ICL1900-G3]

Re: Has anyone checked

Eh Shepard's drawings are much nicer than the Disney cutesy ones.

[Ball boy]

It's a good platform to use!

A balloon makes for a great reconnaissance platform: it's slow moving and can have very non-aerodynamic antennas without them causing flight issues. However, it has a problem: if it's passively collecting data then the folk on the ground have predictable flight path options and can 'go quiet' when it's in range - or cover items from visible sight. If it's actively scanning then I'm sure NORAD will have a handle on its radar bands and will have deduced things like its likely resolution and so on - again, making it possible to mitigate what useful information it can collect.

Shooting it down is a tough call. If I were to send a balloon into someone's back yard, I'd wrap any sensitive equipment with a Pound or two of high explosive, primed to detonate either on command or automatically if the flight envelope varies outside what I consider 'expected'.

Even if it collects nothing more useful than the exact temps and wind speeds at 60+ thousand feet, it's served a very useful political role to someone: it's got the US public (and us lot!) talking about a potential threat and making people think national defence is sub-standard. I don't know if we should be embarrassed about it or shamed for not thinking of it first!

[Anonymous Cow-Pilot]

Re: It's a good platform to use!

Its not worth wrapping it in high explosive - the weapon you try and use to shoot it down will already likely have high-explosive charges, and given your shooting at a balloon most projectiles will fly right through it without detonating, fall to the ground and detonate there. (remember the balooin is significant;y higher than even fighter jets travel). A significant advantage of using a balloon is that any attempt to shoot it down is likely to result in more damage being caused on the ground by the fired munitions than to the balloon. You have to cause considerable collateral damage just to get the balloon to lose enough buoyancy to significantly descend, and even then it will take a day or so for it to descend from that height to ground level.

[tangentialPenguin]

These people comin' over here, takin' our... bison.

[Neil Barnes]

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0a/ab/26/0aab26bd2cdf64a9f4901940c00cc0f9.jpg ?

[JohnTill123]

Or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lyfj_D_qfM

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry about Chinese Balloons

It's Chinese moles you need to worry about. Their fiendishness was documented over half a century ago:

Battle Beneath The Earth

[Anonymous Coward]

shot down by F22s

sneaking behind, undetected, then... BANG!

[TeeCee]

Quick!

Everyone dress up as Winnie-the-Pooh.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Quick!

nice one!

[Anonymous Coward]

Too high to try out a microwave weapon and fry it's 'tronics?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, it isn't.

but if they did could you tell the difference?

It would then turn from a passive antenna array scanning our air defense system to passive ballast hanging from a balloon.

[Howard Sway]

Another report described it as "the size of three buses"

"Excellent plan comrade, they'll never spot it!"

Then again, "a bus" is quite a vague unit of measurement, isn't it?

[xyz]

Re: Another report described it as "the size of three buses"

>>Then again, "a bus" is quite a vague unit of measurement, isn't it?

I thought a bus was 350,000,000 quid a week for the NHS... Boris said so.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Another report described it as "the size of three buses"

I thought "double-decker bus" was an El Reg unit of measure already...

https://www.theregister.com/Design/page/reg-standards-converter.html

(it's listed under 'length')

[Julz]

Have

A look for project Moby Dick for a taste of what the US was up to in this line of work all be it, a while go.

Starter for ten:

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/cold-war-balloon-surveillance

[Anonymous Coward]

Roswell called. It wants it's "not at all a spaceship from outer space" balloon back.

[Dronius]

Is this a GoodYear for Chinese surveillance?

[Greg 38]

Balloon, huh? I guess the chip export controls to China must be working

[Roland6]

"the Pentagon aren't worried about it"

I note the military aren't saying where they first picked this balloon up; let us hope it wasn't when it was over Montana and reported to them by a member of the public...

[Peter2]

Re: "the Pentagon aren't worried about it"

The military will be aware of the possibility of being spied upon via spy sats and will have measures in place to reduce the amount of information provided to whatever they want other people to think.

[Orv]

Re: "the Pentagon aren't worried about it"

They knew about it. This isn't even the first. They only decided to talk about it after a civilian spotted this one from a jetliner.

[Pirate Dave]

Hmmm

So if the US Gubmint thinks a balloon is a chinese spy vehicle, they will refuse to shoot it down, and will let it merrily continue on its way?

So if the US Gubmint doesn't know that a balloon is NOT a chinese spy vehicle, but is instead carrying a model rocket, will they still refuse to shoot it down for long enough for it to shoot the model rocket into space and make history? Maybe that woulda been the answer years ago...

[Pirate Dave]

Re: Hmmm

LOL. Two thumbs down. Must be some FAA officials on here.

[Arthur the cat]

Reverse the wind turbines!

Put enough power into them to blow it back to China.

[Orv]

The flat earthers were right!

Flat earthers have been saying for years that satellites are a hoax, and are actually suspended from balloons. Now we have an actual photo of one!

[RegGuy1]

Shoot it down?

General VanHerck, recommended no "kinetic action" be taken against the balloon due to the risks that falling debris could be bad news for the safety and security of people on the ground.

Is this the same careful consideration used by police when drawing their arms to confront a (black) driver? We won't shoot you because we may hurt somebody else. (This of course is a joke, as I believe pulling the trigger then thinking about it is normal behaviour.)

[yetanotheraoc]

Re: Shoot it down?

no "kinetic action" ...

They haven't ruled out potential action.

[Orv]

Re: Shoot it down?

Ironically, the military tend to use much more restrictive rules of engagement than American cops.

[Binraider]

The laser armed 747 experiment would be a good choice for this task, if overkill...

[Richard Pennington 1]

Better than shooting it down ...

If I were the US military, I would be interesting in capturing the balloon intact, rather than shooting it down. The intelligence is clearer if you don't have to do the jigsaw first.

[DerekCurrie]

EMP +/or Interference

Much as the US federal government drags its feet catching up with contemporary technology, I cannot imagine the US military has not either nailed the balloon's electronics with an EMP or they've instituted EM interference to prevent the thing from sending coherent data to China: Criminal Nation.

Don't doubt that the CCP is the most dangerous and deceitful government entity currently existing. Reminder: They've been documented to have been hacking the USA since 1998, the year the Clinton administration provided them with Most Favored Nation status. Thankfully, MFN status was effectively withdrawn as of 2022.

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Tough luck that transitioning away from China has drawbacks. We should never have fallen for the CCP's parasitic behavior in the first place. Deal with it Walmart, Apple, Microsoft, ad nauseam.

China’s Most-Favored-Nation Status Is Ending, What Are the Implications?

[TheInstigator]

Re: EMP +/or Interference

I hope you realise that EVERY coutry conducts spy operations - including Western countries - and *shock horror* the USA?

[TheInstigator]

Re: EMP +/or Interference

Also - you know the US have been caught spying on Germany - and I'm sure they're spying on other "Allied" countries - what's that all about?

[mevets]

Alaskan Air Space

Did we learn that Alaskan Air Space was penetrable by Ballons (or rather objects flying slowly at that altitude) ?

That British Columbia either didn't notice or were too stoned to think it was real isn't much of a surprise.

Suddenly knee jerk at the lower 48 may be revealing something.

[Orv]

Re: Alaskan Air Space

It's already happened over Hawaii and Guam. It's less that the military suddenly cares now, and more that civilians have spotted it and so they've had to comment.

[Anonymous Coward]

The last time Balloons were flown over the USA it was the Japs that were flying incendiary bombs in, all the way across the Pacific. Xi is really pushing his luck here. Maybe he's upset that he cannot shoot down Aurora when it fly's over China. lolz.

[spold]

OK...

...who ordered the Trump Baby balloon on AliExpress one night, after too many wobbly-pops?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up there! No, not over here!

Diversionary tactics 101.

Meanwhile the CCP are probably siphoning off US money and data elsewhere.

[TheInstigator]

An interesting precedence ... and thought ....

... with the breaking news that America has now shot down the Chinese balloon - does this now set a precedence where China will shoot down any UAVs over Chinese airspace?

Maybe we are closer to WW3 and a new cold war (in all but name) than ever - so exciting! The whole world may yet burn

[TheInstigator]

Re: An interesting precedence ... and thought ....

Having thought about this a bit more - probably not.

The US - being the type of people they are - will probably regard it as an act of war - shooting down one of their UAVs - and respond accordingly. What's good for the goose is not good for the gander

[TheInstigator]

Re: An interesting precedence ... and thought ....

Of course .... if the US does this to you - this is because they are a leader for democracy, freedom of expression, truth and all that good stuff (just don't say that to Iraq)

[Binraider]

Re: An interesting precedence ... and thought ....

At least one US drone has already been brought down in Iran.

Note that brought down is distinct from shot, for reasons that should be abundantly obvious. In case they are not, it could be an equipment failure, jamming, operator error or, good old mark one eyeball and spray-and-pray with a kalashnikov.

[TheInstigator]

Re: An interesting precedence ... and thought ....

I remember this being on the news - the first thing Iran did was invite Russia and China to examine it - lol

[Pirate Dave]

Re: An interesting precedence ... and thought ....

"The whole world may yet burn"

You may not be far off the mark there...

https://www.space.com/doomsday-clock-moves-90-seconds-to-midnight

[TheInstigator]

Re: An interesting precedence ... and thought ....

Good - as a species we do not deserve to survive - I do find it funny that if aliens do exist they're either clever enough to steer clear of us as much as possible, or they haven't found us yet - once they do if they had any sense they'd wipe us out - or plant the seeds to do it to ourselves ....