undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdTal3y ago0 comments

This is a very reasonable explanation for the otherwise mysterious question of why even use an (obvious, provocative) balloon in the first place, when China has perfectly good satellites.

It may not be exactly what they have in mind, but I think it's the right way to think about the question - they are engineering scenarios which work to their advantage no matter how the US responds. US shoots them down? Play outraged. US leaves them alone? US looks weak.

0 comments

consumer4513y ago

> when China has perfectly good satellites.

We need to move past this whole "why use spy balloons when we have satellites" thing. Even Scott Manley repeated it.

The USA has what are likely the most capable surveillance satellites in the world yet the USA still employs spy planes.

For one thing, RF signals suffer from path loss over distance. The difference is >140km in distance. That's a lot of signal loss. Another factor is loiter time.

nonethewiser3y ago

Presumably if not shooting them down looks weak, then shooting them down looks competent. And playing outraged confers no advantage to China.

dTalOP3y ago

Maybe not. But honestly, they're so massive and slow and visible, and visibly loitering over sensitive sites, that they practically scream "shoot me down". There must be some advantage gleaned from it, because they can't reasonably have expected anything else to have happened.

jallen_dot_dev3y ago

> why even use an (obvious, provocative) balloon in the first place, when China has perfectly good satellites.

The balloon floated about 100x closer to the surface than a satellite in low-Earth orbit and travelled much slower, making it potentially easier to collect signals/images.

hughw3y ago

Obvious, provocative.... and unsteerable.

dTalOP3y ago

The previous balloon was steerable, as it could control its altitude to catch different currents.

I don't think we know enough about this "unknown object" to definitively say what it could and couldn't do.

Osyris3y ago

Not unsteerable if you have altitude control + a good model of wind patterns. This is what Project Loon[1] did and I think it's fair to assume the technology might be similar.

[1]: https://x.company/projects/loon/

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsdTal3y ago0 comments

This is a very reasonable explanation for the otherwise mysterious question of why even use an (obvious, provocative) balloon in the first place, when China has perfectly good satellites.

0 comments

consumer4513y ago

> when China has perfectly good satellites.

We need to move past this whole "why use spy balloons when we have satellites" thing. Even Scott Manley repeated it.

The USA has what are likely the most capable surveillance satellites in the world yet the USA still employs spy planes.

For one thing, RF signals suffer from path loss over distance. The difference is >140km in distance. That's a lot of signal loss. Another factor is loiter time.

nonethewiser3y ago

Presumably if not shooting them down looks weak, then shooting them down looks competent. And playing outraged confers no advantage to China.

dTalOP3y ago

jallen_dot_dev3y ago

> why even use an (obvious, provocative) balloon in the first place, when China has perfectly good satellites.

The balloon floated about 100x closer to the surface than a satellite in low-Earth orbit and travelled much slower, making it potentially easier to collect signals/images.

hughw3y ago

Obvious, provocative.... and unsteerable.

dTalOP3y ago

The previous balloon was steerable, as it could control its altitude to catch different currents.

I don't think we know enough about this "unknown object" to definitively say what it could and couldn't do.

Osyris3y ago

Not unsteerable if you have altitude control + a good model of wind patterns. This is what Project Loon[1] did and I think it's fair to assume the technology might be similar.

[1]: https://x.company/projects/loon/

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse