Is this a Chinese spy balloon?

[Mendel]

It's not an accident that things like the Geneva Convention are usually silent on spies despite being very comprehensive on soldiers at war, prisoners of war, civilians in a war zone, civilian government of warring nations, etc etc etc.

Technically true, but incomplete.

1. A "spy plane" pilot would be wearing their own uniform, and the aircraft wouldn't be "disguised" either, so for purposes of the rules of war, they wouldn't actually be spying. They'd be conducting reconnaissance.

2. There are rules governing spies:

Article:

A spy taken in the act may not be punished without previous trial. This requirement was already recognized in the Brussels Declaration and the Hague Regulations.[10] It is also set forth in a number of military manuals.[11] Captured spies are entitled to the fundamental guarantees set out in Chapter 32, including the right to a fair trial (see Rule 100). This is emphasized in the military manuals of Canada, Germany, New Zealand and Nigeria.[12] It is also laid down in Additional Protocol I, which states that anyone who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status, and does not benefit from more favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention, still enjoys the fundamental guarantees of Article 75 contained in Additional Protocol I.[13] Consequently, the summary execution of spies is prohibited.

Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule107

 

[Greene]

So we used a missile costing probably close to $500K to take out a pre-WW1 technology, the balloon.

If we are making a cost analysis, I'd argue that the payload likely cost far more than the 9x used to bring it down.

As the story was playing out, I kept wondering if the U.S. had some tech that could
try to get entwined with the loose ends of the thing (Yes, like AT-ATs in Empire Strikes Back), ;P
capture it and bring the whole thing in...for a complete and thorough examination.

I'm guessing not, since they opted for the AIM-9X Sidewinder...and maybe they were
confident that they could retrieve virtually all of the tech pieces...?

The US has used mid air recovery in the past to 'catch' various items, but those were relatively light/small & being slowed by parachute.

Remember the payload of this balloon was estimated to be "about the same size as a regional airliner".

 

[FatPhil]

wonder why this one is "for test flight" but ours was allegedly for weather.

Field testing the various excuses, to see which one gets better market adoption. (I'm reminded of the scene(s) near the start of /The Death of Stalin/, where it is fastidiously remembered and recorded that a tomato squashed in the pocket, and sundry other happenstances, went down well with the great leader, and so should be repeated.)

 

[Mendel]

Excerpts from DoD press briefing transcripts:

Article:

Pentagon Press Secretary Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder Holds an On-Camera Press Briefing

Feb. 3, 2023

Q: General, you said the balloon is maneuverable. So do — does that mean that it's not drifting?

GEN. RYDER: So the balloon is maneuverable. Clearly, it's in — it's violated U.S. airspace. And again, we've communicated that fact to the PRC.

Q: And if possible, can you tell us if the balloon, when it enters the — entered the U.S. airspace, has it changed its course in any way?

GEN. RYDER: The balloon has changed its course, which is, again, why we're monitoring it, but that's about as specific as I can get. Thank you.

Q: But is it — you say that it's moving eastward and it's over the continental U.S. It's change — it's not over Montana anymore. Is the Chinese government controlling the movement of the balloon, or is it just floating with air streams?

GEN. RYDER: Thanks, Jennifer. So I'm not going to go into any specific intelligence that we may have. Again, we know this is a Chinese balloon and that it has the ability to maneuver, but I'll just leave it at that.

Source: https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3288141/pentagon-press-secretary-brig-gen-pat-ryder-holds-an-on-camera-press-briefing/

The narrative of the People's Republic of China is that this is a weather balloon that drifted off course, implying the PRC has no control over it. The US DoD narrative is that it can maneouver and is therefore akin to an unmanned aircraft.

To me, that feels primarily like a legal distinction. The DoD has not committed to saying that the balloon actually did maneouver in US airspace. (There's more at the end of the last quote below.)

Article:

Senior Defense Official and Senior Military Official Hold an Off-Camera, On-Background Press Briefing Update on the High-Altitude Surveillance Balloon

Feb. 4, 2023

As planned, the F-22 engaged the balloon from an altitude of 58,000 feet. The balloon itself was between 60 and 65,000 feet.

Our assessment, and this is just our assessment, and we're going to learn more as we pick up the debris, was that it was not likely to provide significant added — additive value over and above other PRC intel capabilities such as, you know, satellites in Low Earth Orbit, for example.

So — so the debris field is at least seven miles spread out. So you can have an understanding, it doesn't just fall down. It would have fallen at least in a seven-mile kind of radius that you'd have to clear and ensure safety of U.S. citizens and also infrastructure.

Source: https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3288618/senior-defense-official-and-senior-military-official-hold-an-off-camera-on-back/

Article:

Gen. Glen VanHerck, Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command and United States Northern Command, Holds an Off-Camera, On-The-Record Briefing on the High-Altitude Surveillance Balloon Recovery Efforts

Feb. 6, 2023

Q: Thank you. And on the prior balloons, was NORTHCOM involved in tracking the balloon that was at the early stage of the Biden Administration and also the three that transited during the Trump Administration, and what can you tell us about those that were different?

Thank you.

GEN. VANHERCK: So those balloons, so every day as a NORAD commander it's my responsible to -- responsibility to detect threats to North America. I will tell you that we did not detect those threats. And that's a domain awareness gap that we have to figure out. But I don't want to go in further detail.

[...]

Q: And I have a follow-up question. Could you give us an estimate of how big the balloon was? We saw that it had solar panels and it could also potentially had a recording device on it.

GEN. VANHERCK: Yes, so the balloon assessment was up to 200 feet tall for the actual balloon. The payload itself, I would categorize that as a jet airliner type of size, maybe a regional jet such as a ERJ or something like that. Probably weighed in excess of a couple thousand pounds. So I would -- from a safety standpoint, picture yourself with large debris weighing hundreds if not thousands of pounds falling out of the sky. That's really what we're kind of talking about.

So glass off of solar panels potentially hazardous material, such as material that is required for batteries to operate in such an environment as this and even the potential for explosives to detonate and destroy the balloon that -- that could have been present.

[...]

GEN. VANHERCK: Thanks, Jennifer. It wasn't time. It -- the domain awareness was there as it approached Alaska. It was my assessment that this balloon did not present a physical military threat to North America, this is under my NORAD hat. And therefore, I could not take immediate action because it was not demonstrating hostile act or hostile intent. From there, certainly, provided information on the status of the whereabouts of the balloon. And moving forward, kept the department and [..] the government of Canada in the loop as my NORAD, I have a boss in Canada as well. Over.

[...]

I would point out and I think it's important to talk about is, day to day we do not have the authority to collect intelligence within the United States of America. In this case, specific authorities were granted to collect intelligence against the balloon specifically and we utilized specific capabilities to do that, Jennifer. And I'm sorry I can't give you further detail.

[...]

As far as the actual site, the 20 by 20 [miles] was a -- that's a site -- and area that we cleared out from the maritime -- or the notice to mariners for safety. We wanted to clear that box out. I cleared another box out that was 150 miles by 150 miles for air traffic to ensure that there was no air traffic that was potentially involved, to minimize risks to all personnel and infrastructure.

The analysis -- and oh, by the way, we were able to get significant analysis throughout this process, as a cross, that enabled us to make this a much more safe and effective operation. So, in partnership with NASA, who gave us an assessment that would potentially be up to six or seven miles of debris. That's where -- that's where we decided to make the engagement six miles off the coast so that no debris would go back over the coast.

Now, with that said, David, I think it's important to point out, there was debris that's expanded out further, we have collected the majority of that debris that fell in the ocean and other places. Now, what we're talking about, is really that superstructure below that fell down and limited itself to this 1,500 meter by 1,500-meter box that we're talking about. Does that clarify?

[...]

Q: Yeah. And could you answer the question about whether there was a warhead in the missile?

GEN. VANHERCK: Yeah, absolutely. There was a warhead in the missile. You can see that explosion on TV as it goes through the lower part of the balloon and right there through the superstructure.

[...]

And they utilized the winds and it's a maneuverable platform as well, but [they] utilize their maneuverability to strategically position themselves to utilize the winds to traverse portions of countries that they want to see for collection purposes.

[...]

Q: So -- so just important clarification here: You didn't have a reason to think there were explosives. You just -- this was out of an abundance of caution, and you thought it might potentially have them, so you had to be careful. Is that correct, or did you have reason to believe there were explosives?

GEN. VANHERCK: I would say it was the prior. I did not have any corroboration or confirmation of explosives on this platform. That was an -- an assessment that we wanted just to make sure for safety purposes.

Source: https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3289888/gen-glen-vanherck-commander-north-american-aerospace-defense-command-and-united/

 

[Mendel]

Remember the payload of this balloon was estimated to be "about the same size as a regional airliner".

Specifically, an ERJ. These are 86 to 98 ft (26 to 30 m) long.

For comparison, each of the eight solar arrays on the International Space Station is 112 feet long by 39 feet wide. A Starlink satellite solar panel is about 30 ft long and 10 ft wide.

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.

 

[Greene]

Specifically, an ERJ. These are 86 to 98 ft (26 to 30 m) long.

I remembered the original quote was comparing it to an Embraer but I couldn't find it when I typed that up so went with the paraphrase which is used in most of the follow on stories.

 

[Duke]

If we are making a cost analysis, I'd argue that the payload likely cost far more than the 9x used to bring it down.

Possibly. Hopefully we'll find what that payload consisted of, but I'm not holding my breath.

The US has used mid air recovery in the past to 'catch' various items, but those were relatively light/small & being slowed by parachute.

All those cases involved items to be recovered and recovering aircraft being specially designed/modified for the mission. I well remember seeing films of modified C-119s snagging ejected spy satellite film capsules under a parachute as a kid.
https://www.military.com/video/oper...o-catch-a-falling-spy-satellite/3841223113001

Cooler still were the snatch recoveries of people from the ground with the Fulton Recovery System. That had to be a harrowing experience for the individual being recovered.


Source: https://youtu.be/Hvamu9SarMU

 

[FatPhil]

Cooler still were the snatch recoveries of people from the ground with the Fulton Recovery System. That had to be a harrowing experience for the individual being recovered.

That was a great youtube vid - thanks! A mechanism like this (I've seen the Bond movie, obviously) was the first thing that went through my mind, I'm disappointed that shooting the balloon with a fragmentation grenade was the most delicate thing was attempted. With modern materials, such as highly elastic polyamides, I'm sure a significant proportion of the pickup impulse can be offloaded into some give at the scoop/winch end. Fishermen have been not gouging the roofs out of fishes' mouths for ever and a half, intact recover seems like an almost entirely solved problem. Why would they avoid maximally-complete recovery? The simplest explanation surely is that if it's accidentally and tragically destroyed by their fragmentation device they never have to tell us anything about what it really is - their backs are automatically covered. Let's see what information they finally release (perhaps after a barrage of FOIAs).

 

[Mendel]

Why would they avoid maximally-complete recovery? The simplest explanation surely is that

... that they were unprepared and couldn't set this up in a hurry.

This thing is pretty big.

 

[FatPhil]

Given that this is a different claim it could be a forked thread, but if the matter's convincingly resolved already, then one simple response could head any digression off at the pass immediately:

Given that the opposite has been claimed by some parties (well-known domain experts such as "someone on the internet"), are the truthinesses of this interconnected jigsaw of claims verified:

At least three suspected Chinese spy balloons flew over the US undetected during the Donald Trump presidency, defence officials have said.

The US did not detect the balloons at the time, said Gen Glen VanHerck, citing a "domain awareness gap".

They may have initially been classified as UFOs, according to the New York Times and Bloomberg.

The US has since classified them as surveillance balloons, based on additional intelligence.

Gen VanHerck, the Pentagon official responsible for US airspace defence, said on Monday there was a gap in military intelligence at the time.

"It's my responsibility to detect threats to North America. I will tell you that we did not detect those threats," he said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64547394

It has new details, but new details doesn't mean more true.

 

[Mendel]

If this is a "weather balloon", it'd best be called a high-altitude platform, designed to stay aloft for months. The bulk of the payload would be the solar panels and batteries, and the engine. At 20 km altitude, it has a 500 km horizon, and could be controlled from the ground or a geostationary satellite.

Article:

Whether an airship or an aeroplane, a major challenge is the ability of the HAP to maintain stationkeeping in the face of winds. An operating altitude between 17 and 22 km is chosen because in most regions of the world this represents a layer of relatively mild wind and turbulence above the jet stream.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_satellite#Altitude_selection_for_HAPS

This suggests that if the balloon is caught in a jetstream, its propeller may be insufficient for it to keep its station. It might be designed to sail east until it returns home again.

If this platform serves a primarily metereological purpose, then I'd expect Chinese news outlets to have reported on it before.

Article:

China lifted a high-altitude balloon containing 1.2 tons of scientific payloads into the sky up to an altitude of approximately 18 miles (30 km) as part of a demonstration test on September 30, 2022.

A research team from the Aerospace Information Research Institute (AIR) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) conducted the test in the northwestern Chinese province of Qinghai. They set out to validate the payload capacity of their near-space balloon platform.

The scientific balloon and the gondola floating into the sky. (AIR)

During their test, the uninflated length of the balloon measured more than 100 meters. Once inflated, it measured 180,000 cubic meters. The balloon carried a gondola roughly 18 miles into the sky.

Source: https://interestingengineering.com/science/china-heavy-payload-balloon-test

Above, I had estimated the volume of the "spy balloon" at 110,000 cubic meters.

So the idea that it's a science platform is plausible. It'd also be transmitting data as a matter of course.

 

[Mendel]

are the truthinesses of this interconnected jigsaw of claims verified:

I quoted some press briefings above that confirm that newspaper report, but obviously that's the same source. NORAD apparently doesn't rate these things as threats, balloons are very slow so the computer analysis might just be programmed to throw the data out.

Article:

PRC government surveillance balloons transited the continental United States briefly at least three times during the prior administration and once that we know of at the beginning of this administration, but never for this duration of time.

Source: https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3288618/senior-defense-official-and-senior-military-official-hold-an-off-camera-on-back/

Article:

Q: Thank you. And on the prior balloons, was NORTHCOM involved in tracking the balloon that was at the early stage of the Biden Administration and also the three that transited during the Trump Administration, and what can you tell us about those that were different?

GEN. VANHERCK: So those balloons, so every day as a NORAD commander it's my responsible to -- responsibility to detect threats to North America. I will tell you that we did not detect those threats. And that's a domain awareness gap that we have to figure out. But I don't want to go in further detail.

The intel community, after the fact, I believe has been briefed already, assess those threats to additional means of collection from additional means and made us aware of those balloons that were previously approaching North America or transited North America. I hope that answers your question.

Source: https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3289888/gen-glen-vanherck-commander-north-american-aerospace-defense-command-and-united/

 

[JMartJr]

Remember the payload of this balloon was estimated to be "about the same size as a regional airliner".

Just came across this image, which conveys the size of the balloon and payload pretty effectively:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_...edia/File:Chinese_Balloon_Size_Comparison.svg

 

[NoParty]

...the payload of this balloon was estimated to be "about the same size as a regional airliner".

Thanks...somehow I never ran across that (up 'til then) or it just failed to register.

 

[Hevach]

Mid-air recovery is not easy, even with a lot of pre-planning and a target specifically set up for it.

NASA has attempted mid-air recovery for sample return capsules and have dropped about half of them. NROL used to do it for the film capsules from spy satellites and their full track record isn't known but it is known they didn't always succeed.

And actually catching a large object is no guarantee of success.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/05/...s-booster-in-mid-air-after-successful-launch/

The Electron rocket's first stage is a little over 12 meters long, much smaller than the array on this balloon. Both the rocket and the aircraft had been fitted with equipment for the catch in what was thought to be the optimal configuration.

After being caught it became quickly apparent that it wasn't optimal. It was unstable and posed a danger to the recovery aircraft, so they were forced to drop the rocket in the water and recover it by boat.

That's a smaller load carefully prepared and intended for mid-air recovery. This isn't something you just do blind.

 

[Duke]

... that they were unprepared and couldn't set this up in a hurry.

This thing is pretty big.

There are a number of "rapid prototype" capable organizations in the DoD, probably in the three letter intelligence agencies as well. In many cases they will modify or up/down scale existing systems, or at least use them as a baseline. Finding a "maximally-complete recovery" solution to this unique, unforeseen scenario in a few days would have been a tall order. That said, I'd be surprised if some "special projects office" hasn't been assigned to look for a solution in case there is a next time.

 

[deirdre]

I quoted some press briefings above that confirm that newspaper report,

interesting the unnamed "Senior Defense Official and Senior Military Official", say "transited the continental united states". while the named "Gen. Glen VanHerck, Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command and United States Northern Command" only says "North America".
I had heard one balloon was off the coast of virginia (the 'radar jamming' claim made me think of some of our Navy UFO threads) and another over Guam.

Article:

Alleged Chinese spy balloons were spotted on several occasions during President Donald Trump's administration, including three instances where they traveled near sensitive US military facilities and training areas, according to people familiar with the matter.

The balloons were spotted near Texas, Florida and Hawaii, as well as the Pacific Ocean island of Guam, where the US has naval and Air Force bases
...
The balloons also flew near Norfolk, Virginia, and Coronado, California - two ports where the US stations its prized aircraft carriers

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-06/chinese-balloons-spotted-near-military-bases-near-guam-virginia-under-trump?leadSource=uverify%20wall

some reporting says "over" these areas, some say "near".

 

[Mendel]

PRC government surveillance balloons transited the continental United States briefly at least three times during the prior administration and once that we know of at the beginning of this administration, but never for this duration of time.

It's easy to think that this was the same type of balloon, but there's no evidence for that.

That's a smaller load carefully prepared and intended for mid-air recovery. This isn't something you just do blind.

One would wish for a rehearsal of some sort.

The problem is also that the best means to bring the balloon down turned out to be an air-to-air missile, and the capture aircraft would then have to be on the hot side of that during the mission, and below that shower of debris.

 

[JMartJr]

And then there's this:

If history is a guide, the publicity surrounding the recent shooting down of a Chinese 'spy balloon' over the United States is an ideal set-up for an impending outbreak of UFO sightings. The United States has a long history of similar scares. The pattern in these episodes is eerily similar beginning with an initial incident that receives saturated media coverage. Soon, large numbers of people begin to scrutinize the skies and begin seeing the object of their fears. These outbreaks are driven by known psychological processes and can be summed up in the old adage, "Speak of the Devil and he is bound to appear."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...spy-scare-could-trigger-a-rash-of-ufo-reports

Brace yourselves...

 

[deirdre]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...spy-scare-could-trigger-a-rash-of-ufo-reports

I dont think Psychology today should in any way be equating Chinese people to the Devil. That can't be good for the anti-Chinese sentiment this balloon will help stoke.

 

[FatPhil]

I dont think Psychology today should in any way be equating Chinese people to the Devil. That can't be good for the anti-Chinese sentiment this balloon will help stoke.

The things being talked about, and therefore are predicted to appear - like the devil, are balloons, not Chinese people.

 

[Ann K]

I dont think Psychology today should in any way be equating Chinese people to the Devil. That can't be good for the anti-Chinese sentiment this balloon will help stoke.

I think you're misreading it entirely. "Speak of the devil" is an old, old phrase in the English language. It's not been applied to the Chinese people, and no one (except, perhaps, the odd religious conspiracy theorist) could possibly come to your conclusion through reading that article.

 

[Landru]

The topic is the Chinese balloon incident. Not alien abduction.

 

[Duke]

Article

The Biden administration has determined that the suspected Chinese surveillance balloon, which was shot down by US jets on Saturday, was operating with electronic surveillance technology capable of monitoring US communications, according to a senior State Department official.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/09/politics/spy-balloon-technology/index.html

Must have been monitoring the National Weather Service.

 

[Mendel]

Article

The Biden administration has determined that the suspected Chinese surveillance balloon, which was shot down by US jets on Saturday, was operating with electronic surveillance technology capable of monitoring US communications, according to a senior State Department official.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/09/politics/spy-balloon-technology/index.html

Must have been monitoring the National Weather Service.

my transistor radio is "electronic surveillance technology capable of monitoring US communications"

Here's more from the same source (the official transcript isn't up yet, I think):

Article:

The officials told lawmakers that the US has assessed that little new intelligence was gleaned by the Chinese balloon operation because the Chinese appeared to stop transmitting information once the US learned of the balloon.

"The high-altitude balloons' equipment was clearly for intelligence surveillance and inconsistent with the equipment onboard weather balloons. It had multiple antennas to include an array likely capable of collecting and geo-locating communications. It was equipped with solar panels large enough to produce the requisite power to operate multiple active intelligence collection sensors," the official added.

Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/09/politics/spy-balloon-technology/index.html

I'd like to see a picture of that antenna array, that'd be definitive proof.

It's obvious that a high altitude platform would have equipment to communicate with a satellite and/or a ground station, even if its purpose was strictly scientific. A signals intelligence setup is likely to contain more antennas (and receivers) than that.

 

[Mendel]

Rising and falling in the atmosphere to take advantage of currents at different altitudes would indeed give a balloon some influence over its movement. A traditional hydrogen or helium balloon could rise by dumping sand or other ballast, or by pumping more gas into the envelope from a pressurised container. It could fall by venting a controlled amount of gas from the envelope into the atmosphere. A hot air balloon could rise by turning up the heat, or fall by turning it down and allowing the air in the envelope to cool.

These methods all have limitations. The supplies of fuel, gas, or ballast carried by the balloon cannot be replenished in flight, and must run out eventually.

Modern balloons use air as ballast:

Article:

A ballonet is an air bag inside the outer envelope of an airship which, when inflated, reduces the volume available for the lifting gas, making it more dense. Because air is also denser than the lifting gas, inflating the ballonet reduces the overall lift, while deflating it increases lift. In this way, the ballonet can be used to adjust the lift as required.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballonet

All this requires is an electric pump and a valve, and the supply never runs out.

 

[deirdre]

The officials told lawmakers that the US has assessed that little new intelligence was gleaned by the Chinese balloon operation because the Chinese appeared to stop transmitting information once the US learned of the balloon.

I didn't hear anything like that in the public portion of the hearing. And the classified briefings won't have a transcript ever.

The second half of the paragraph you didn't copy

Article:

The officials told lawmakers that the US has assessed that little new intelligence was gleaned by the Chinese balloon operation because the Chinese appeared to stop transmitting information once the US learned of the balloon, in addition to US measures to protect sensitive intelligence from China's spying operations, according to the sources.

Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/09/politics/spy-balloon-technology/index.html

was mentioned at least 3x briefly, the most thorough discussion (maybe 30 seconds) was around 36:30. to paraphrase, they hid our stuff when the balloon was overhead.

Apparently there was a prior classified briefing, which may be why no committee member asked them specifically if they could pick up transmissions from the balloon. Noone brought up the topic of transmissions. The commitee head Tester, sort of maybe alluded to the topic and Mr. Royal maybe made it sound like they didnt have access to transmissions (although this is me just assuming) Mr. Royal speaks 25:15-26:30. I'm not going to transcribe because body language and tone is best watched for people to make their own decision about what the words mean.


Although... they did also keep saying the risk increased as it approached Montana...not sure if they figured the transmissions would just be turned on again or if the transmissions were always on.

 

[Duke]

my transistor radio is "electronic surveillance technology capable of monitoring US communications"

Here's more from the same source (the official transcript isn't up yet, I think):

Article:

The officials told lawmakers that the US has assessed that little new intelligence was gleaned by the Chinese balloon operation because the Chinese appeared to stop transmitting information once the US learned of the balloon.

"The high-altitude balloons' equipment was clearly for intelligence surveillance and inconsistent with the equipment onboard weather balloons. It had multiple antennas to include an array likely capable of collecting and geo-locating communications. It was equipped with solar panels large enough to produce the requisite power to operate multiple active intelligence collection sensors," the official added.

Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/09/politics/spy-balloon-technology/index.html

I'd like to see a picture of that antenna array, that'd be definitive proof.

It's obvious that a high altitude platform would have equipment to communicate with a satellite and/or a ground station, even if its purpose was strictly scientific. A signals intelligence setup is likely to contain more antennas (and receivers) than that.

My first thought as well, not that I'd know what I was looking at.

Has anyone seen anything that indicates there were cameras on the thing?

 

[Mendel]

Has anyone seen anything that indicates there were cameras on the thing?

I'd be surprised if there weren't, civilian satellites have them. If I was operating a HAP, I'd want to be able to get it above a volcano about to erupt and send me footage, for example—a LEO satellite couldn't do it continuously, and a geosynchronous satellite would have a worse resolution.

However, if it had a camera with optics and sensors able to get better than 1m resolution, I'd question if the purpose was really metereology.

 

[Mendel]

The big item missing is that there's no statement from China. If this was a research balloon, they'd be able to produce the project manager and a rough data sheet on the equipment aboard the balloon.

 

[DavidB66]

All this requires is an electric pump and a valve, and the supply never runs out.

Good point, though the ability of the ballonet system to increase altitude must be limited by the volume of the ballonets. Once all the air has been pumped out of them, that's it. In that sense they are just a substitute for conventional ballast, which may or may not be more efficient.

It did occur to me belatedly that there might after all be a way of replenishing ballast while in flight. If the balloon travels through rain or clouds the water might be 'harvested' to refill ballast tanks. I have no idea if this has ever been tried. The Japanese high-level 'bomber balloons' in WWII did tend to accumulate moisture on their surface, especially during the night, which would reduce their lift, but I don't think this was used deliberately as a control system. They did ingeniously have an automatic system to release ballast if the altitude dropped out of the intended range. The war historian Mark Felton has an interesting new video on the Japanese balloons, prompted in part by the Chinese balloon furore:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YocN6EMHChE

 

[Mendel]

Good point, though the ability of the ballonet system to increase altitude must be limited by the volume of the ballonets.

That's a feature. "Balloon limited to 80,000 ft alitude" isn't really a drawback.

It did occur to me belatedly that there might after all be a way of replenishing ballast while in flight. If the balloon travels through rain or clouds the water might be 'harvested' to refill ballast tanks.

This will not work, because at high altitude there are no clouds.

If the inside ballonet is filled with helium, and the outside is air, the pump could easily equalize a few bullet holes—which would tend to make the balloon rise and not fall, anyway. Any puncture of the helium ballonet is across a zero pressure differential, and if there was escaping helium, it would dilute the ballast air and still mostly provide lift. That would make it very hard to predict where the balloon comes down, unless it gets catastrophically destroyed.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Good point, though the ability of the ballonet system to increase altitude must be limited by the volume of the ballonets. Once all the air has been pumped out of them, that's it. In that sense they are just a substitute for conventional ballast, which may or may not be more efficien

The maximum altitude would be a result of the maximum size of the balloon completely filled with helium, and I would think the weather conditions the balloon is in. The ballonet system can be used to adjust altitude up and down. To go up, they are emptied, thus increasing the volume of the balloon filled with helium rising to whatever max that balloon can achieve. To go down, the ballonet system is pumped full of regular atmospheric air, decreasing the volume of the balloon that is filled with helium. As long as there is some sort of solar powered air pump onboard this can be done repeatedly. As it works in a blimp:

Ballonets

are air-filled bags that are located inside the envelope. The blimp has two ballonets, one fore and one aft. The ballonets are similar to the ballast tanks of a submarine. Because air is heavier than helium, the ballonets are deflated or inflated with air to make the blimp ascend or descend, respectively. They are also used to control the trim, or levelness, of the blimp.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/blimp1.htm

 

[DavidB66]

To go up, they are emptied, thus increasing the volume of the balloon filled with helium rising to whatever max that balloon can achieve

Yes. Once they are emptied, they have no further effect in raising altitude - just like dumping the last of your ballast.

If the helium (or hydrogen) content of the balloon is constant, I suppose it could stay at the maximum intended altitude indefinitely. But balloons tend to leak. With helium balloons this may be unavoidable. Someone on Quora states that:

Helium, being the smallest gas molecule there is, will slip through any membrane you devise eventually. The higher in the atmosphere your balloon floats the greater the pressure differential between inside and outside and the faster those helium molecules will eventually escape.

Source: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possibl...nds on the pressure inside,open at its' mouth).

If that is correct, the balloon will eventually fall to the ground (or sea).

 

[Gridlock]

Re: maneuverability, with sufficient processing power you can simply alter altitude to move into a different stream of air (without external direction). This is a problem Alphabet moonshotted with Loon;

https://x.company/projects/loon/#

https://x.company/blog/posts/how-project-loon's-smart-software-learned-to-sail-the-winds/

Geosynchronous-capable balloons with preprogrammed flight paths vs common conception of a balloon

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

I don't buy that these balloons have a controllable maneuverability. They simply go with the (air) flow.

 

[LilWabbit]

The latest news on a similar object -- except of a smaller size -- shot down over Canada on Saturday:

Article:

U.S. fighter jet shoots down unidentified, cylindrical object over Canada

WASHINGTON/OTTAWA, Feb 11 (Reuters) - A U.S. F-22 fighter jet shot down an unidentified cylindrical object over Canada on Saturday, the second such shootdown in as many days, as North America appeared on heightened alert following a week-long Chinese spying balloon saga that drew the global spotlight.

Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau first announced the shootdown over the Yukon territory in the country's north and said Canadian forces would recover and analyze the wreckage.

Canadian Defence Minister Anita Anand declined to speculate about the origin of the object, which she said was cylindrical in shape. She stopped short of describing it as a balloon but said it was smaller than the Chinese balloon shot down off South Carolina's coast a week ago, but similar in appearance. She said it was flying at 40,000 feet and posed a risk to civilian air traffic when it was shot down at 3:41 EST (2041 GMT).

Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-still-gives-no-details-about-alaska-ufo-new-object-seen-over-canada-2023-02-11/

F-22s armed with AIM 9X missiles are clearly capable enough in taking down UFOs flying at 40,000 feet along with airliners.

 

[Keith Beachy]

Call me skeptic, but I find it hard to believe you would spy a country thousands of km away, by using a balloon that depends on the wind changes. You just can't accurately predict where it will be in a few days.

Reconnaissance with Balloon might be an order of magnitude cheaper vehicle than an SR-71. Wind patterns can be forecast to plan the flight over areas of interest.

Balloons have been used to spy/reconnaissance for over 300 years. With an uplink to satellite, it is can be a cheap way to spy and claim it is a WX balloon.

There are ways to maneuver Balloons. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1364883/FULLTEXT02.pdf
Dropping weight or venting gas to be in better forecast winds. Albeit these techniques can't last forever. Why vent gas when you can heat the helium... gee, guess with an array of solar cells, can I heat my gas... what happens if I cool it... wonder if they found a heat pump on board the China unannounced visitor. Or did the solar cells power a compressor to help adjust altitude to guide the balloon to winds to navigate to areas of interest.

If the balloon was just WX research, then the people who control/track the balloon need to get DIP Clearance (diplomatic clearances) prior to crossing airspace, it is a border violation. The next time, they need to coordinate.

China will blame the US no matter what, as they usually do. China blamed a P-3 for downing an F-8 fighter which is not logical since the fighter is able to maneuver easy and has no business slowing to the P-3 speed, a speed range the F-8 would have problems at, below the maneuver speed of an F-8. To blame the US for their pilot's error is illogical, and exposes the lack of flying experience/expertise. I doubt China will admit anything, and will blame the US for downing the Balloon.

Did China fail to warn the US about their Balloon was off course, or did they fail to know it could be seen at the cruise altitude it was at. It would be harder to see visually if it was higher. Was the the balloon fabricated with stealth inmind. ? oops how much do questions cost? oops
Balloon Kill

I don't buy that these balloons have a controllable maneuverability. They simply go with the (air) flow.

Like sailing?

 

[Mendel]

I don't buy that these balloons have a controllable maneuverability. They simply go with the (air) flow.

incredulity in the face of facts:

Re: maneuverability, with sufficient processing power you can simply alter altitude to move into a different stream of air (without external direction). This is a problem Alphabet moonshotted with Loon;

https://x.company/projects/loon/#

https://x.company/blog/posts/how-project-loon's-smart-software-learned-to-sail-the-winds/

Geosynchronous-capable balloons with preprogrammed flight paths vs common conception of a balloon

Back in 2011, we had a hunch that balloons flying freely on the winds could be controlled just enough to act like floating cell phone towers in the sky. We'd pump air out of or into the balloon to make it lighter or heavier, and then move up or down to catch winds traveling in the direction we wanted to travel. When we ran our first sizable test of Project Loon in 2013, launching dozens of balloons from New Zealand to see if they'd circumnavigate the globe, we knew we had a lot to learn. We thought the balloons would act like leaves in a stream, flowing where the air currents went, and we figured our main task was to manage the balloons' paths just enough to keep them at a roughly equal distance from each other.

We continued to push for improvements, both in our algorithms and in the altitude control system on the balloon, which translated into a greater choice of winds to fly on. This then gave us another opportunity: a greater variety of winds meant we could more deliberately and consistently sail balloons north, south, east, or west, rather than having to circle the globe entirely once we started drifting away from the place we wanted to be. So we wondered if we could actually do a loop around an ocean or a continent. And sure enough, we found a way. Then we tried to make the loops smaller, to see if a balloon could return to its original location in 5 days…then 4 days…then 3 days

By early 2016, the team was seeing a few balloons behave in a slightly weird way: lingering in an area rather than sailing away. In the weirdness, they saw opportunity. They asked themselves the once-impossible question: could our algorithms help the balloons to stay much closer to the location they were already in? In mid 2016, we started sending balloons from our launch site in Puerto Rico to hang out in Peruvian airspace — and they did, some for as long as three months. We repeated the experiments, and saw the same results: we had figured out how to cluster balloons in teams, dancing in small loops on the stratospheric winds, over a particular region.

Sounds pretty controllable to me.

 

[jackfrostvc]

I have gone on a hot air balloon ride. They steer by going up or down trying to find a current of air going in the direction they want to go.

If they couldn't steer, I may have ended up in the harbour rather than the park some distance away they were aiming for