Is this a Chinese spy balloon?

Perhaps the best evidence the Chinese balloon was a spy device is their failure to provide clear evidence that it was not.

How could they do that? Easy. Take a collection of foreign journalists to visit the weather agency that launched it. Take them to the factory where it was made. Let them observe the launch of the next one, complete with souvenir photos of the journalists standing in front of the balloon. If it was an innocent device they could easily prove that beyond any doubt.

But they have not. As far as I know anyway. Any stories in the foreign press about such a visit to the weather balloon factory?
 
Perhaps the best evidence the Chinese balloon was a spy device is their failure to provide clear evidence that it was not.
That's a fallacy, of course. I agree, that would certainly work, but "It's true because you didn't prove it was false" is a very bad argument indeed. Reverse the nationalities, and ask yourself "Does my country have an obligation to show all our technology details to a foreign power with whom we are not friends?" I suspect you'd be inclined to say no.
 
Any stories in the foreign press about such a visit to the weather balloon factory?
it's not a conventional weather balloon, it's a high altitude platform, and likely not that many exist. They don't run off some assembly line.

Reverse the nationalities, and ask yourself "Does my country have an obligation to show all our technology details to a foreign power with whom we are not friends?" I suspect you'd be inclined to say no.
Yet Project Loon is quite well documented.

In general, civilian science and research is fairly public, see e.g. the article on the Chinese AIR balloon I quoted at https://www.metabunk.org/threads/is-this-a-chinese-spy-balloon.12858/post-287359 .
 
Last edited:
obligation
These are excerpts of the actual obligations, as set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO):
Article:
Unmanned Free Balloons

Definition: A non-power-driven, unmanned, lighter-than-air aircraft in free flight. Source: ICAO Annex 2 - Rules of the Air

Unmanned free balloons need to comply with various requirements before they launch, e.g.:

Authorization requirements: An unmanned free balloon needs to receive appropriate authorization from the state of launch. Additional authorization is required if the balloon will be operated over the territory of another state (light meteorological balloons are exception from this) and if operating over high seas, coordination with the appropriate ATS authority is required.

During the flight, the operator of a heavy unmanned free balloon operating at or below 60 000 ft must monitor the flight path and forward position reports as requested by air traffic services, at least every two hours. If the balloon operates above 60 000 ft, the frequency of these reports can be increased to once per 24 hours.

ATS means "air traffic services" and encompasses air traffic control (who the pilots talk to) and related services.

If China had followed these procedures, the balloon wouldn't have been tracked by NORAD, but by the FAA.
 
Last edited:
The US government is claiming that there are multiple such balloons. That seems to support the idea of a spy program and not one off balloon gone rough.
 
That seems to support the idea of a spy program and not one off balloon gone rough.
i read that they specifically said none of these new ones were spy things.
Article:
WASHINGTON — White House officials said [John F. Kirby, a White House spokesman] Monday that three unidentified flying objects shot down since Friday posed a “very real” threat to civilian air traffic but were not sending out communications signals.
 
i read that they specifically said none of these new ones were spy things.
Article:
WASHINGTON — White House officials said [John F. Kirby, a White House spokesman] Monday that three unidentified flying objects shot down since Friday posed a “very real” threat to civilian air traffic but were not sending out communications signals.
That the "spy things" did not send out signals sounds logical to me. Does not make them NOT "spy things". I am convinced they were all spying objects.
 
That the "spy things" did not send out signals sounds logical to me. Does not make them NOT "spy things". I am convinced they were all spying objects.
It would be useless to gather information without having a way to return that info to the people who launched it, wouldn't it?
 
It would be useless to gather information without having a way to return that info to the people who launched it, wouldn't it?
That kind of remark just invites speculation: what if "they" were tracking the balloon via satellite, and then signaled it to drop a data payload where an operative could recover it? It just fortifies the image in the audience's mind that it's nefarious.

What really helps is to emphasize that there is zero evidence supporting that belief. With the PRC balloon, we had
• PRC claiming ownership
• high-altitude balloon
• maneouverable
• sending signals
• antenna array
• intelligence on PRC high-altitude spy balloon program

On the 3 smaller objects, we have none of that. The officials say that they have the potential to be surveillance balloons, but that language is based on the same lack of evidence. And the DoD presumably even has photographs/video of the objects!
 
It could just not have been transmitting while they were monitoring
Easy enough to install a radar warning receiver, then connect/rig an "off switch" to shut everything down if it detects the thing is being painted.
 
Is there any information on what evidence they're attributing this to China?
“It is a civilian airship used for research, mainly meteorological, purposes. Affected by the Westerlies and with limited self-steering capability, the airship deviated far from its planned course. The Chinese side regrets the unintended entry of the airship into US airspace due to force majeure,” the spokesperson said in a statement.
Content from External Source
Well, we have new evidence, reported by the Washington Post. (indirect quote due to paywall)
Article:
“By the time a Chinese spy balloon crossed into American airspace late last month, U.S. military and intelligence agencies had been tracking it for nearly a week, watching as it lifted off from its home base on Hainan Island near China’s south coast,” the Washington Post reports.

“U.S. monitors watched as the balloon settled into a flight path that would appear to have taken it over the U.S. territory of Guam. But somewhere along that easterly route, the craft took an unexpected northern turn, according to several U.S. officials, who said that analysts are now examining the possibility that China didn’t intend to penetrate the American heartland with their airborne surveillance device.”

“This new account suggests that the ensuing international crisis that has ratcheted up tensions between Washington and Beijing may have been at least partly the result of a mistake.”



Source: https://twitter.com/TexasLindsay_/status/1625684468156575748
The CBS clip in that Twitter post is a fairly good summary of what we know about those balloons.
 
Well, we have new evidence, reported by the Washington Post. (indirect quote due to paywall)
Article:
“By the time a Chinese spy balloon crossed into American airspace late last month, U.S. military and intelligence agencies had been tracking it for nearly a week, watching as it lifted off from its home base on Hainan Island near China’s south coast,” the Washington Post reports.

“U.S. monitors watched as the balloon settled into a flight path that would appear to have taken it over the U.S. territory of Guam. But somewhere along that easterly route, the craft took an unexpected northern turn, according to several U.S. officials, who said that analysts are now examining the possibility that China didn’t intend to penetrate the American heartland with their airborne surveillance device.”

“This new account suggests that the ensuing international crisis that has ratcheted up tensions between Washington and Beijing may have been at least partly the result of a mistake.”



Source: https://twitter.com/TexasLindsay_/status/1625684468156575748
The CBS clip in that Twitter post is a fairly good summary of what we know about those balloons.

So where did the Chinese intend for the balloon to go? And if there was SIGINT gear on board, what data were they hoping to get wherever it was meant to go?
 
(indirect quote due to paywall)
all bold was in the article, which is odd as i don't usually see such formatting in WP articles.

Article:
Analysis by Olivier Knox
with research by Caroline Anders
February 15, 2023 at 11:54 a.m. EST

...
My colleagues Ellen Nakashima, Shane Harris and Jason Samenow reported Tuesday night that not only did the United States track the balloon from the day it lifted from its base on Hainan Island but that U.S. officials are trying to assess whether it was, in fact, blown off course.

“U.S. monitors watched as the balloon settled into a flight path that would appear to have taken it over the U.S. territory of Guam. But somewhere along that easterly route, the craft took an unexpected northern turn, according to several U.S. officials, who said that analysts are now examining the possibility that China didn’t intend to penetrate the American heartland with their airborne surveillance device,” they reported.
“The balloon floated over Alaska’s Aleutian Islands thousands of miles away from Guam, then drifted over Canada, where it encountered strong winds that appear to have pushed the balloon south into the continental United States, the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive intelligence.”

“This new account suggests that the ensuing international crisis that has ratcheted up tensions between Washington and Beijing may have been at least partly the result of a mistake.”

Not so innocent, though

Crucially, though, my colleagues noted that whatever pushed the airship illegally into American airspace, what it did once there matters at least as much. It’s hardly exonerative.

“Its crossing into U.S. airspace was a violation of sovereignty and its hovering over sensitive nuclear sites in Montana was no accident, officials said, raising the possibility that even if the balloon were inadvertently blown over the U.S. mainland, Beijing apparently decided to seize the opportunity to try to gather intelligence.”
 
Which is still spying on the US.
Yes, but Guam isn't that big. You can probably spy on it without violating its airspace. Like, you know, US recon drones are doing with Ukraine and Russia as we speak.

And since it didn't actually go to Guam, it's easy to claim it was meant to.
 
Yes, but Guam isn't that big. You can probably spy on it without violating its airspace. Like, you know, US recon drones are doing with Ukraine and Russia as we speak.

And since it didn't actually go to Guam, it's easy to claim it was meant to.
Probably? Until we hear what the balloon's capabilities were, that's merely speculation. And wasn't Guam mentioned as one of the balloon overflight locations during the previous administration, along with Texas and Florida?
 
Yes, but Guam isn't that big. You can probably spy on it without violating its airspace
Various sources, including Reuters, are claiming that the target was Hawaii as well as Guam. (All citing anonymous US official sources.) That would give China coverage of major US Navy and Air Force bases in the Pacific, which would presumably be of great interest to China if they are contemplating action against Taiwan.

If the reports are true, and the balloons were just blown far off course, that tends to discredit claims that the balloon was deliberately 'loitering' or 'hovering' over missile sites, etc, on the US mainland. (Though I suppose the Chinese may have opportunistically taken advantage of an unplanned opportunity.) More generally, it casts doubt on suggestions that the balloon was steered in some sophisticated way to hang over specific targets. An error of thousands of miles is not a minor glitch! It is also surprising that the balloon was not able to self-destruct or drop its payload over deep water as soon as the error was clear. That way there would be less risk that sensitive information would fall into American hands.
 
(All citing anonymous US official sources.)

call me suspicious, but sounds more to me like "we" are trying everything in our power now to excuse China (just like everyone has done with COvid), because of the issues that will present if we take a hard line with them. Alaska is really really really far off course, for people with the educational skills China is generally known for. my opinion.
 
excuse China (just like everyone has done with COvid)
.?? Thats a completely unjustified claim. That's not what I've seen at all. There's been a strong tendency for many people to BLAME China for Covid (without any evidence) under the absolutely-useless-but-popular principle of ascribing blame rather than taking action.
 
Various sources, including Reuters, are claiming that the target was Hawaii as well as Guam. (All citing anonymous US official sources.) That would give China coverage of major US Navy and Air Force bases in the Pacific, which would presumably be of great interest to China if they are contemplating action against Taiwan.

If the reports are true, and the balloons were just blown far off course, that tends to discredit claims that the balloon was deliberately 'loitering' or 'hovering' over missile sites, etc, on the US mainland. (Though I suppose the Chinese may have opportunistically taken advantage of an unplanned opportunity.) More generally, it casts doubt on suggestions that the balloon was steered in some sophisticated way to hang over specific targets. An error of thousands of miles is not a minor glitch! It is also surprising that the balloon was not able to self-destruct or drop its payload over deep water as soon as the error was clear. That way there would be less risk that sensitive information would fall into American hands.
I wondered about that as well. Not that difficult to install a severance system, like a ballistic guillotine or explosive bolt, to release the payload. Initiating it from a great distance via a radio link would be the more difficult part of such a design, but that challenge shouldn't be insurmountable.

Of course we won't know until the payload is recovered/analyzed, but it's doubtful there is advanced technology the Chinese would worry about being compromised if found by an adversary. Ditching it in deep, open water would make it far more difficult to recover, and almost impossible for that adversary to prove it's purpose was spying, however.
 
Last edited:
There's been a strong tendency for many people to BLAME
i'm not talking about people, im talking about administrations. Administrations and organizations that dont want to rock the boat too much. You dont have to agree, but it's what i see.
 
i'm not talking about people, im talking about administrations. Administrations and organizations that dont want to rock the boat too much. You dont have to agree, but it's what i see.
Oh. Not people. I guess I was thrown off by your word "everyone".
 
Oh. Not people. I guess I was thrown off by your word "everyone".
everyone in the context of the quote i was responding to ie. all the governments worldwide and health organizations (CDC, WHO etc). Basically, those bodies who have any power to do anything about it. I didn't mean everyone who uses twitter or individual politicians griping about it. Obviously there are individual people griping about it.
 
The pilot of the U-2 which shadowed the balloon released a selfie of the craft from above.

Notably it gives us the most detailed view of the payload module, which does appear to feature 4 nacelles with props.



Source
 
Article:
full-u-2-balloon-selfie.jpg
Observers have also pointed out that the U-2S's shadow on the balloon's envelope helps provide a good sense of its overall size. Using a length of 65 feet for the U-2S, this would indicate the diameter of the balloon is approximately 130 feet


At 20,000 m altitude, the air density is ~0.08891 kg/m³. A 200 ft diameter sphere has a radius of 30 m and a volume of V = 113097.336 m³. The lift this provides is ~10,000 kg, or 10 metric tons. That's about what an ERJ weighs empty. About 14% of that is taken up by the helium itself, and more by the fabric. Caveat: 200ft is the upper bound of the size estimate, and the shape was not spherical. If the balloon was 150 ft tall and 75 ft wide, it could lift ~1 ton.
65 ft = 19.5 m radius, spherical volume = 31060 m³, air displacement = 2760 kg

a big part of what we're seeing there is probably the batteries

I expect the propellers serve to orient the solar cells? if those are propellers and not antennas
 
Article:
full-u-2-balloon-selfie.jpg
Observers have also pointed out that the U-2S's shadow on the balloon's envelope helps provide a good sense of its overall size. Using a length of 65 feet for the U-2S, this would indicate the diameter of the balloon is approximately 130 feet



65 ft = 19.5 m radius, spherical volume = 31060 m³, air displacement = 2760 kg

a big part of what we're seeing there is probably the batteries

I expect the propellers serve to orient the solar cells? if those are propellers and not antennas
Based on what? Has this been done in other applications?
 
I'm not really clear what you're asking here, but for the computation, all I used is the formula for the volume of a sphere, and the physical definition of density := mass / volume.
My mistake. The propellers being used to orient the solar cells statement.
 
My mistake. The propellers being used to orient the solar cells statement.
the size of the propellers in relation to the drag of the balloon makes me think they're not well suited for propulsion, but the way they're attached may make them suitable to rotate the payload. The equipment that needs rotating the most seem to be the solar cells (sun rises in the east, sets in the west). Antennas would have their own servos.

air displacement = 2760 kg
slightly more than a Tesla X
 
the size of the propellers in relation to the drag of the balloon makes me think they're not well suited for propulsion, but the way they're attached may make them suitable to rotate the payload. The equipment that needs rotating the most seem to be the solar cells (sun rises in the east, sets in the west). Antennas would have their own servos.

The fact that there are 4 tells me that they're intended for both orientation and propulsion. For orientation, whilst preserving symmetry, you'd only need 2.

I could try to scribble a terrible MSPaint job to describe things, but will try some ASCII art instead (is a monospace font possible apart from as 'code' on the forum - 'tt' didn't work?). Here, '+' means the prop is powered in the normal way, as per the direction of the fan is < left or > right. '-' means run in reverse if that works (it often doesn't, in which case, just power off). 'o' is the up-down axis of the balloon.

Pure propulsion to the left:
Code:
+<     >-
    o
+<     >-
Rotate clockwise:
Code:
+<     >-
    o
-<     >+
 
the size of the propellers in relation to the drag of the balloon makes me think they're not well suited for propulsion, but the way they're attached may make them suitable to rotate the payload. The equipment that needs rotating the most seem to be the solar cells (sun rises in the east, sets in the west). Antennas would have their own servos.

The NASA Helios prototype solar powered UAV used very efficient wide chord propellers that were optimized for high altitude (upwards of 100k feet). It's possible something similar was utilized here.

a big part of what we're seeing there is probably the batteries

I expect the propellers serve to orient the solar cells? if those are propellers and not antennas

I see 48 separate solar panels.

Assuming those panels generate 350w to 600w each, that's roughly 17kw to 24kw of power generation. That's quite a bit of power.

Besides motors, what else would require that type of power?

Passive ELINT receivers generally don't draw a lot of current (transmitters on the other hand...).

I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, it's just another thing to think about.
 
Wouldn't the props be used to change altitude only? A sphere is a high drag shape and the balloon has no internal or external structure or gas pressure to stiffen it. Propelling a limp spherical balloon horizontally at the end of a long tether through wind at high altitudes doesn't seem credible to me.

The early powered dirigeables looked like this:

giffardairship.jpg
I would think all those ropes are there to give the gas bag some rigidity and to distribute the thrust evenly.

As for bringing the solar cells into a better angle to the Sun... Wouldn't rotating the props eat up more power than the slight increase you'd get by adjusting the angle? Wouldn't they just add reserve generation capacity by adding more cells? The additional weight would be supported by a bigger balloon and the "free" lift.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top