[HN Gopher] Hobby Club's Missing Balloon Feared Shot Down by USAF
___________________________________________________________________
Hobby Club's Missing Balloon Feared Shot Down by USAF
Author : benryon
Score : 389 points
Date : 2023-02-16 19:44 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (aviationweek.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (aviationweek.com)
| m3kw9 wrote:
| They don't allow drones to fly in most places, but allow these
| ballons fly all over the place?
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Regardless of whether it's allowed or not, it's very hard to
| stop, and laws are routinely broken all the time (like drivers
| speeding).
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Flying hundreds of feet above the ground is very different from
| floating thousands (tens of thousands?) of feet up.
| [deleted]
| mrandish wrote:
| As a long-time RC hobbyist who designs, builds and flies small,
| short-range battery-powered foam aerobatic planes and gliders for
| fun and relaxation, it sounds like yet another engineering-
| centric, technical hobby is about to have their fun ruined by
| lack-of-understanding, politically-driven performative "safety
| theater" and media-fueled runaway paranoia.
| [deleted]
| jgrahamc wrote:
| Yep. When I heard the description of this balloon I was sure it
| was a picoballoon. Having done balloon flights and dealt with
| the regulations and reporting etc. I can see how this hobby is
| going to get shut down for no good reason. Sucks.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| Like I always say. People. They ruin everything.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| For proof of this just check these HN threads where many
| commenters think this balloon was a danger to commercial
| airliners. And this is a forum populated by nerds.
| kragen wrote:
| at least they aren't burning you at the stake yet
| paganel wrote:
| I called this whole thing as a joke a few days ago, glad that I
| was proved right.
|
| Of course that the propaganda machine won't touch the Air Force
| (or the US military more generally) not even with a feather, it's
| full "the Emperor's clothes are all so wonderful!"-mode.
| not2b wrote:
| The original Chinese balloon was completely different from
| these three tiny things that were shot down later, and that one
| was worth investigating. It was huge, the other three are tiny
| and probably hobbyist balloons.
| throwaway67743 wrote:
| This is horrifically embarrassing, the anti China rhetoric has
| now strayed into paranoia, they could have easily determined what
| it was beforehand with their "world class" warfare suite - it's
| no wonder the east thinks they're a joke (which they really are)
| [deleted]
| mardifoufs wrote:
| It's really funny how just a few years ago, making fun of those
| "idiots" back in the 1950s-60s for being paranoid about the red
| scare and of their toxic, almost ridiculous commie paranoia was
| common and mainstream. Yet we are back at almost exactly the
| same spot, with the exact same rhetoric and a similar
| public/media discourse. Just wild.
| runjake wrote:
| If all of this nonsense in the news is interesting to you, check
| out radiosondes[1]. There is a very active recovery community[2].
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosonde
|
| 2. https://sondehub.org/
| arbuge wrote:
| I'm not sure what the prorated cost of the fighter jets and crew
| to shoot these things down was, but I have seen multiple news
| reports that the cost of the missiles was around $450k apiece. In
| at least one incident, two missiles were needed after the first
| missed.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| Why do people keep bringing up the cost of the missile? The
| cost to run the us military is much more than 1 million dollars
| per minute.
| andrewmunsell wrote:
| Because if we kept thinking this way, then the cost of the
| military would never go down below $1m per minute.
|
| Unnecessary spending-- and not just shooting down Arduinos--
| contributes to the total spend & therefore budget
| kube-system wrote:
| The value in training and lessons learned from these events
| will likely greatly exceed the value of the materials
| spent.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| Over 525 billion dollars / year ?
|
| https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/298001.
| ..
|
| Well over $1million / minute.
| localplume wrote:
| [dead]
| macinjosh wrote:
| So? I am not disturbed that we used 0.00001% (or whatever) of
| the military budget on a missile. I am disturbed that for a
| cost of that single missile we could replace the lead pipes
| in an elementary school or employ multiple teachers for a
| year.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| I don't know why it surprises you that it costs a lot of
| money to research, develop, manufacture, store, distribute,
| and maintain low-volume cutting edge weapons technology
| using expensive all-American components and labor. The fact
| that a babysitter is paid less than the cost of a missile
| seems pretty unrelated. And if you think you can build a
| sidewinder for under $30k, please go right ahead, the
| country needs you.
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| I'll build one sidewinder for 20 gs right now.
|
| Next time you want to shoot down a mylar balloon with
| one, don't.
|
| Follow my advice and have 1 more sidewinder than in the
| counterfactual. How can I expect to receive the 20k?
| closewith wrote:
| Roughly $85k per hour, so it cost a _lot_.
|
| Source:
| https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a41956551...
| bandyaboot wrote:
| These missions may not actually represent much extra cost
| beyond the expended weapons however. The pilots have to get a
| certain number of flight hours regardless of whether they
| come in the form of training flights or missions to keep the
| world safe from small mylar balloons.
| loopdoend wrote:
| I always marvel at costs given by governments and wonder if
| they aren't baking in a lot of salary costs that would be
| spent regardless.
| jxramos wrote:
| got to feed the outrage machine. It would be great to start
| to educate around terminology in this space. What would it
| be fixed costs vs variable costs, so only count variable
| costs into the equation, something like that?
| deleted_account wrote:
| This may be the wrong take-away, but the Air Force shooting your
| balloon down would be a massive source of pride for the science
| clubs I remember from my youth. We would have had that on a
| t-shirt within a week.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| Pride for club and a little shame for the government.
| dylan604 wrote:
| God. Country. Corp. Unit. Balloon.
| [deleted]
| par wrote:
| Yes, but that was a different America. Post 9/11, post housing
| crisis, post global terrorism, post decline into late stage
| capitalism is changing the narrative substantially. Everyone is
| constantly on guard these days. But I agree with and love the
| sentiment.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| blamazon wrote:
| I would be right away dialing my congresspersons to demand an
| appropriate victory marking[1] be placed on the relevant
| aircraft.
|
| It would make for a great photo op someday when all this is
| just a historical footnote.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_marking
| dylan604 wrote:
| I nominate this as the Victory Marking:
| https://mellywilliams.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/red-
| balloo...
| askvictor wrote:
| I propose the Banksy:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_with_Balloon
| dylan604 wrote:
| seems too complicated with copyright
| NDizzle wrote:
| Yep.
|
| Float around and find out.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| I feel like this sort of spirit is now completely gone. If your
| science experiment gets shot down, my expectation is you're
| going to get labelled a terrorist and thrown into a prison
| cell.
| krisoft wrote:
| > you're going to get labelled a terrorist and thrown into a
| prison cell
|
| You are making up things.
| jollyllama wrote:
| Yeah, if I were the guy who launched it, I wouldn't say
| anything.
| matt3210 wrote:
| [flagged]
| jb12 wrote:
| Don't worry, we've been laughing since the GW Bush days.
| thehappypm wrote:
| The rest of the West really has got it made. Spend nothing on
| defense because the USA will always bail you out. Meanwhile
| US citizens get ridiculed for producing the most powerful
| economy in world history.
| vuln wrote:
| It's really easy to pay for healthcare and social benefits
| for your citizens when your military defense is subsidized
| by American Tax Payers.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| I see this statement a lot, but the US spends about 2-3x
| the cost per capita for healthcare than the rest of the
| OECD. That includes both public and private spending.
| (see https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm)
|
| We can afford it, with or without the military spending.
| programmarchy wrote:
| Europe: I feel sorry for you.
|
| USA: I don't think about you at all.
| pphysch wrote:
| The US has by far the largest trade deficit in the world.
| It's a net consumer, because it can print dollars. It is
| not remotely the most powerful productive economy on a per-
| capita basis.
| dhd415 wrote:
| It's certainly an accomplishment to achieve a highly
| productive per capita economy, but I don't think it's
| quite the slight on the US when the four countries with
| higher productivity per capita range in size from 0.3% to
| 2.8% of US GDP. Achieving productivity per capita at
| scale is hard.
| toss1 wrote:
| Yup, and nevermind that almost everyone is ignorant of the
| massive role of the US Navy in protecting _global_ shipping
| lanes from piracy, which is why you can send a 40ft
| container from Shenzen to LA for something like $2000 and
| expect it to get here with 99.999% certainty. The piracy
| off of Africa was a short-lived phenomena - until they
| found out that forking around where the USN plays works out
| very badly for you.
| googlryas wrote:
| Does the government have the right to destroy whatever it wants
| in the air? Could this club sue for the cost of the balloon?
| CydeWeys wrote:
| It's not quite the right question to ask. The government is
| going to destroy whatever it wants to in the air, and there's
| only ever gonna be potential consequences (of a diplomatic
| nature) if it accidentally results in the injury/death of an
| innocent party.
|
| The Supreme Court is not going to intervene here in matters of
| military discretion, and no one is going to be able to sue here
| over this.
| karaterobot wrote:
| I don't think you should be downvoted for asking a question.
| I'm _sure_ there are legalities we don 't understand, so it's
| legitimate to ask about them. I'd also like to read a response
| from an informed source.
| [deleted]
| shagie wrote:
| The key treaty on this is the Chicago Convention
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Convention_on_Internat...
|
| https://www.icao.int/Meetings/anconf12/Document%20Archive/an...
|
| Appendix 4 - Unmanned free balloons
|
| 2.1 An unmanned free balloon shall not be operated without
| appropriate authorization from the State from which the launch
| is made.
|
| 2.2 An unmanned free balloon, other than a light balloon used
| exclusively for meteorological purposes and operated in the
| manner prescribed by the appropriate authority, shall not be
| operated across the territory of another State without
| appropriate authorization from the other State concerned.
|
| 2.3 The authorization referred to in 2.2 shall be obtained
| prior to the launching of the balloon if there is reasonable
| expectation, when planning the operation, that the balloon may
| drift into airspace over the territory of another State. Such
| authorization may be obtained for a series of balloon flights
| or for a particular type of recurring flight, e.g. atmospheric
| research balloon flights.
|
| 2.4 An unmanned free balloon shall be operated in accordance
| with conditions specified by the State of Registry and the
| State(s) expected to be overflown.
|
| ---
|
| Section 2.2 and 2.3 is applicable here. That they didn't know,
| and the government didn't know, and this wasn't a exclusively
| used as a weather balloon... there are possibly some things
| that the hobbyists did that may not have been completely within
| the bounds of the treaty.
|
| There are also things like:
|
| FAA guidance -
| https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html...
| throwanem wrote:
| > there are possibly some things that the hobbyists did that
| may not have been completely within the bounds of the treaty
|
| Given the geopolitical moment, I'm inclined to think it might
| work out for the best if that were so.
|
| Not that today's neocon China hawks are any more in the habit
| of listening to reason than they were when they were the
| neocon Iraq hawks of a couple of decades ago, but anything
| that gives everyone else another reason not to listen to
| their incessant warmongering is in my view entirely welcome.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Could this club sue for the cost of the balloon?
|
| Almost certainly not.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...
| michaelhoffman wrote:
| If you read the linked article, you will find that the United
| States has laws that waive sovereign immunity for torts
| committed by people acting on behalf of the federal
| government. Which is what I assume would be alleged here.
|
| That doesn't mean that they would win such a lawsuit,
| however.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| They _can_ waive torts, yes. Doing so is a very specific
| process.
|
| Cops regularly get qualified immunity for absolutely
| _egregious_ conduct. The military is not going to get
| successfully sued for shooting down a $12 balloon while
| acting in good faith on national security duties.
| gnopgnip wrote:
| Individual government employees are covered by qualified
| immunity, not their employer
| michaelhoffman wrote:
| What do you think the "very specific process" involved
| for the federal government waiving immunity to tort
| claims? I assume that is what you mean by "waive torts"
| which is a phrase that doesn't really make sense. Since
| it is "very specific", can you describe it?
|
| Again, you may want to carefully read the article you
| linked, and linked articles within such as the one on the
| Federal Tort Claims Act:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act
| ceejayoz wrote:
| You ask what the procedure is, and then link right to it.
| Legislation giving citizens the right to sue in certain
| scenarios. Without the government's OK, no suing the
| government.
|
| The decision here would be "there's no clearly
| established law that the US can't shoot down a balloon
| with an F-22" on qualified immunity grounds.
| michaelhoffman wrote:
| That legislation has already been passed. The Federal
| Tort Claims Act has been the law of the land for 77
| years.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| And qualified immunity in these sorts of scenarios (and
| much, much more deliberately egregious conduct) has been
| the reality of the land since 1967.
| hgsgm wrote:
| Qualified immunity is for personal liability, not
| government liability.
| [deleted]
| bdcravens wrote:
| According to the article, the balloon cost $12 (though I'm sure
| there whatever equipment attached to it was much more)
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| I'm imagining the Commander in Chief having to show up to
| small claims court because he shot down your $12 balloon with
| $400,000 worth of ordinance.
| not2b wrote:
| No, sovereign immunity.
| [deleted]
| apendleton wrote:
| Minor nit: an "ordinance" is a rule or law; "ordnance" is
| the stuff that blows up.
| kube-system wrote:
| Is it because they shoot their 'i' out?
| pengaru wrote:
| > Does the government have the right o destroy whatever it
| wants in the air? Could this club sue for the cost of the
| balloon?
|
| I assume the reason nobody seems to be eager to claim these
| downed balloons is fear of _their_ liability for flying
| unregistered, transponder-less hazards to other flights.
| pc86 wrote:
| Transponders are not required for payloads below
| approximately 100x the weight of these types of balloons.
| There is zero liability, but also zero recourse.
|
| It's hard to argue that if the government can't identify
| something operating in controlled airspace that it can't take
| measures pretty solidly in the realm of "national defense,"
| up to and including blowing it up.
| Rimintil wrote:
| Why would someone sue over what is likely less than $100 in
| total costs? That's silly. You can only recover actual cost.
|
| Plus, who wouldn't be proud to be able to claim "I launched
| something that was shot down by an F-22!"?
| shadowgovt wrote:
| > Does the government have the right to destroy whatever it
| wants in the air?
|
| Hashtag-its-complicated.
|
| To a first approximation: no. The US scrambling a fighter to
| blast a plane full of people out of the sky would be a huge
| mess and incur significant lawsuits.
|
| Refining the approximation: militaries accepts the burden of
| responsibility to protect their people from threats, including
| airborne threats. Airborne threats are already traveling with
| significant potential (and often kinetic) energies so they are
| default-threatening. So militaries have wide discretion to
| presume an aircraft with no transponder is hostile and respond
| appropriately. A lawsuit on that topic would land somewhere
| between "no compensation" and "Sorry kids; Uncle Sam had to
| blow up your project to protect mom and apple pie; here's the
| money for the cost of the mylar and radio parts."
|
| At the boundary-limit of the responsibilities, you can find
| disasters like the tragedy of Korean Airlines (KAL) flight 007,
| where Soviet planes failed to establish contact with a
| commercial airliner and shot it out of the sky.
| throwawaysleep wrote:
| I believe there are rules on flying stuff.
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| With hobby balloons they are usually small enough to be
| exempt from FAA 101.
|
| Even if they aren't, you just need permission from whoever
| controls your airspace (call them 20 minutes ahead of time)
| and only launch if there is very good visibility around the
| ascent path.
| markjenkinswpg wrote:
| Not only does the government have the right to destroy it, but
| so does anyone else.
|
| There's no reasonable expectation of recovery when you launch a
| balloon calibrated to go globe-trotting.
|
| It's basically no different than the person who abandoned a
| mattress at my apartment block's dumpster. It's littering.
| They're giving it away, they're not expecting to be able to
| come back for it later.
|
| Furthermore, nobody has a right to unregistered, unmanned, long
| duration balloon flight. Such a right would only exist if a
| state constructed it for its citizens. (and it would end at
| their boundaries)
|
| I think it's cool that in practice people have been able to do
| so, but it seems the cool times are coming to an end.
| tshaddox wrote:
| > Dad, I tried to go to school, but this guy won't let me.
|
| _Oh yeah?! Him and what army?!_
|
| > The U.S. Army.
|
| _Oh that 's a good army._
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| If a balloon flies at an altitude used by commercial aircraft, it
| should have a transponder similar to commercial aircraft.
| [deleted]
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The balloon pictured in the article has essentially a zero
| percent chance of causing harm to a commercial airliner.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| if a pilot freaks and abruptly maneuvers to avoid it?
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Then they're inconvenienced and discomforted but otherwise
| fine. The first job of a pilot is "keep the plane flying."
| Any avoidance maneuver the pilot undertakes should be
| within the flight envelope of the plane. And planes should
| be separated enough that emergency maneuvers do not put the
| plane at risk of immediate collision with another plane.
|
| If a pilot saw a balloon, freaked out, nosedived / stalled
| the plane and it crashed, the investigation would conclude
| "Pilot error," much the same as it would if a pilot saw a
| flock of geese and did the same thing.
| pc86 wrote:
| Nobody is handflying a commercial airliner at 40k feet, and
| nobody is maneuvering an airliner traveling 500-600mph to
| avoid a balloon like this, it's unlikely you'd even see it
| before you ripped through it.
| buildbot wrote:
| Personally I am not an expert, but since you seem to know,
| what happens to a turbofan when ingesting a ballon like this?
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| It's shredded and burned up almost instantly. They test
| engines to failure by taking an entire 15 lb. or so frozen
| turkey and throwing it directly into the blades to test
| bird strikes. This balloon is way smaller material than
| even a small bird.
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/24/give-thanks-for-the-fowl-
| sho...
| gridspy wrote:
| Pretty sure you need to defrost that turkey first.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| I think they did an episode of mythbusters where they
| created a cannon to shoot turkeys at airplane
| windshields.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Of this small, thin, lightweight sort? Nothing.
|
| The engines will fairly happily mulch an entire human
| (warning: graphic; https://imgur.com/a/1T5YQ). A Mylar
| balloon isn't gonna faze it.
| operatingthetan wrote:
| That's not true. Bird strikes are a thing and cause
| flameouts. You can't even takeoff/land on dirt runways
| with most jets because the dust will damage the engines.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Smack someone with a goose, then smack them with a Mylar
| balloon. Compare the results.
|
| You don't want to _routinely_ ingest gravel from a dirt
| runway (nor balloons!) into your engines. Having one
| pebble kick up off the runway won 't cause an issue.
| operatingthetan wrote:
| You suggested an engine will "happily" consume a human
| which suggests it would continue functioning, you're
| getting blowback because you are making statements that
| indicate you don't know what you're talking about.
| napsterbr wrote:
| Out of curiosity, do you have more context regarding this
| picture (like when/where it happened)?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| El Paso, Texas, 2006. NTSB report DFW06FA056.
|
| https://www.ntsb.gov/about/employment/_layouts/15/ntsb.av
| iat...
| avalys wrote:
| That engine is totaled.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| That engine took at least 150 pounds worth of bony human
| in, turned them into mulch, and did no damage to the rest
| of the aircraft. The other engine also remains intact.
| Pico balloons are measured in grams.
|
| A Mylar balloon isn't going to do anything like that much
| damage.
| tjohns wrote:
| First, we're not talking a tiny 12 inch party balloon.
| Weather balloons are easily 20 feet wide at altitude.
|
| But more importantly, you've always got a sizable package
| of hard electronics dangling off the balloon for sensors
| and telemetry. Ingesting that is going to cause damage,
| guaranteed.
| krisoft wrote:
| > Weather balloons are easily 20 feet wide at altitude.
|
| But this is not a weather balloon in question but a pico
| balloon. 14 cfr SS 101.1 4 provides the limits on them.
|
| > you've always got a sizable package of hard electronics
| dangling off the balloon for sensors and telemetry
|
| Both the weight and the density of the payload package is
| limited by law.
|
| > Ingesting that is going to cause damage, guaranteed.
|
| Excuse me but i am going to believe the FAA on this over
| your say so. They say pico balloons are fine and they are
| extremely risk awerse. If they say it is fine then they
| are fine by a wide margin.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > First, we're not talking a tiny 12 inch party balloon.
|
| Click the link, look at the photo. These are not large
| weather balloons.
|
| The article even says "The club's silver-coated, _party-
| style_ , "pico balloon"..."
| TimTheTinker wrote:
| Why are birds a hazard then?
| kortex wrote:
| _A_ bird is usually not an issue (unless it 's huge like
| a condor or something).
|
| The problem is ingesting a whole flock. Turbofans are
| designed to fling debris (rain, hail, gravel, birds) out
| to the bypass via centrifugal force. However, too much
| material (or insufficient thrust) causes the impeller to
| bog down, so more junk gets sucked into the burn chamber,
| which can cause a flameout.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Because they are more substantial, and because you tend
| to hit them on takeoff/landing, which is the dangerous
| part of flight.
|
| You hit a bird at 30k feet and you've got plenty of
| options - including the second engine.
| tempestn wrote:
| Also usually when bird strikes cause real problems it's a
| flock of birds, not a single one.
| jaywalk wrote:
| An airliner can completely lose a single engine in flight
| without much of a problem. But the engine in that picture
| is significantly damaged.
| MichaelApproved wrote:
| Did you see the fan blades in the pictures you linked to?
|
| They're chipped, cracked, and bent. That's anything but
| happy.
|
| I bet the balloon and, more importantly, the payload
| would indeed faze it.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > They're chipped, cracked, and bent.
|
| After processing _a hundred and fifty pounds or more of
| human being_. If that plane had done so at 30k feet, it
| 'd have been an entirely survivable emergency.
| tjohns wrote:
| That's not really feasible. Transponders require relatively
| huge power sources - 70-125 watts of RF output. The battery
| needed to support that for a usable length of time would be far
| too heavy.
|
| However, they often do have passive radar reflectors.
| jkingsman wrote:
| Per FAA regulations, that is not necessary when the payload is
| below certain limits.
| davidw wrote:
| "Hey kids, remember the big balloon freakout of 2023?". I wasn't
| around for it, but this has some big 'red scare' vibes from what
| I've read of it.
| [deleted]
| arwhatever wrote:
| Would actually be quite impressive if it's confirmed that NORAD
| is able to track and target a balloon/payload weighing between 11
| grams-6 lbs, and flying between 30k-40k feet altitude.
| [deleted]
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| I don't think anyone really knows exactly the fidelity of what
| NORAD can see. And anyone on here that claims to know is almost
| definitely full of shit.
|
| But as Donald Rumsfeld famously said: "we can destroy a bomb
| placed under a pedestrian footbridge from 6,000 miles away
| without destroying the bridge."
|
| So really, who knows.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| The weight of the object doesn't matter though. All that
| matters is ita radar cross-section, which can be through the
| roof even from a one gram piece of metal foil (which would give
| it much more total radar cross-section than an entire F-35!).
| kragen wrote:
| if it's metal foil or metallized foil it could have a quite
| large radar cross section, more so if it's carrying a corner
| reflector to make radar tracking easier
| cmsj wrote:
| Therefore this is the start of open source stealth tech -
| hobbyists fearing military intervention will begin to
| construct their balloons out of radar-absorbing materials.
| kragen wrote:
| or just radar-transparent materials, like polyethylene,
| like many existing balloons
|
| aluminum has real advantages though
| outworlder wrote:
| > Would actually be quite impressive if it's confirmed that
| NORAD is able to track and target a balloon/payload weighing
| between 11 grams-6 lbs, and flying between 30k-40k feet
| altitude.
|
| Is it really impressive? Modern stealth fighters have a radar
| signature smaller than small birds.
| kube-system wrote:
| I would expect NORAD to have the best of the best... but
| there is a reason stealth planes are named as such.
| bagels wrote:
| Radar can see cm scale objects in space. This is easy stuff.
| TkTech wrote:
| Mobile and fixed systems like
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea-based_X-band_Radar exist
| around the US and are reported to be able to pickup baseball
| sized objects from the other side of the continent (and that's
| what they claimed a decade ago before the upgrades).
|
| They're just typically not used with such precision because of
| the sheer amount of false positives they'd generate and how
| little concern there typically is about something so small.
| ben7799 wrote:
| I've seen that thing in Pearl Harbor.. pretty amazing.
|
| Navy guys claimed it could track a baseball in orbit.
| mywittyname wrote:
| I suspect objects "in orbit" are some of the easiest
| objects to track. Once you have a few data points, you can
| pretty much calculate where it will be at any given point
| in time. It takes a lot of energy to meaningfully alter the
| course of an orbiting baseball, so much so that any attempt
| to do so would probably result in the operator now
| successfully tracking a debris cloud that used to be in the
| form of a baseball.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if they did; and the same sensitivity
| captures flocks of birds over the entire continent
| nostromo wrote:
| People keep saying a lightweight craft under six pounds poses no
| threat to commercial aviation, but is that really true?
|
| I doubt a balloon with a circuit board could cause an engine to
| fail, but there are lots of sensitive measurement devices, like a
| pitot tube, that I imagine could fail if a balloon hit it. (For
| reference, Aeroperu 603 was brought down by tape that wasn't
| removed from the plane.)
|
| I'm all about hobbyists hobbying, but it does seem like there
| should be at least some so of registration system so we know what
| people are launching into shared airspace.
| stickfigure wrote:
| "My club's hobby is testing how small/flimsy an object can be
| to bring down an airliner and kill hundreds of innocent
| people."
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > People keep saying a lightweight craft under six pounds poses
| no threat to commercial aviation, but is that really true?
|
| True enough for the extremely risk-averse FAA.
|
| > there are lots of sensitive measurement devices, like a pitot
| tube, that I imagine could fail if a balloon hit it. (For
| reference, Aeroperu 603 was brought down by tape that wasn't
| removed from the plane.)
|
| Tape over _all_ of the multiply-redundant static ports on the
| aircraft. We don 't treat tape as a critical threat to
| aircraft.
|
| The 737-MAX has three pitot tubes and six static ports,
| deliberately placed on both sides of the aircraft.
| (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Boeing-737-NG-and-MAX-
| pr...)
| liketochill wrote:
| But only 1 angle of attack sensor on some models ...
| Sakos wrote:
| No, but that's fine, because Boeing needs to make money
| upselling carriers on redundancy.
| fredoralive wrote:
| No, the 737 Max has 2 AoA sensors, it just used a bizarre
| "only use one at a time and ignore the other" approach to
| (non) redundancy.
| [deleted]
| Thaxll wrote:
| A single bird can cause an engine to fail so...
| Cadwhisker wrote:
| Reminds me of the joke where an engineer is testing cockpit
| windshield resistance to bird-strike by firing dead chickens
| at it from a special cannon. The windshields keep shattering
| and they wonder why.
|
| One engineer suggests that they probably defrost the chicken
| first.
| outworlder wrote:
| Improbable unless it's a really enormous bird (or many large
| birds at one time). A chicken wouldn't be big enough. Bird
| ingestion would probably cause some damage that would have to
| be repaired, but jet engines are tested for this exact
| scenario. And engines are tested for large birds and both
| medium and small engine flocks.
|
| Sure, it _could_ happen with a single bird, but it probably
| won't.
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/33.76
| jameshart wrote:
| Engines are tested exactly for the scenario of ingesting a
| small bird, yes.
|
| Not for ingesting a large Mylar balloon with a mass tied to
| one end, necessarily.
| ikiris wrote:
| I'm sure that Sully flight is much more confident that they
| didn't crash due to dual engine loss from bird strike
| thanks your comment.
| antonjs wrote:
| To pile on, the average weight of male Canadian Geese is
| > 8 pounds, which is higher than the largest 'large bird'
| that needs to be tested, and they travel in flocks. I
| think they worked out that each engine probably ingested
| two birds. At the time those engines were certified, the
| largest bird tested was 4 lbs and they only volleyed them
| into the outer area of the engine, not the core where the
| accident engines hit.[1]
|
| Now they have to send them into the 'most critical area'
| of the engine, but depending on engine size the largest
| bird tested could still be 4 or 6 lbs.
|
| [1] https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/accidentreports/r
| eports/...
| detrites wrote:
| By "tested", do you mean someone out there has the
| somewhat insane job of throwing actual birds into fully-
| powered jet engines?
|
| And I guess cleaning up afterward also?
| dandelany wrote:
| They use a chicken gun, but yes...
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_gun
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| I assume there's some kind of remote operated launcher,
| getting near a running jet engine is a terrible idea, but
| overall yes.
| opamp wrote:
| Engines are also tested for speeds and altitudes where
| birds are typically encountered - ie, not Mach 0.8 at FL35.
| Canopy tests are similar.
|
| If I'm remembering correctly, I think the typical "speed
| limit" is 250 kts below Class A airspace, which is a far
| cry from a Mach number.
|
| edit: I also recall that the testing allows for destruction
| of the engine as long as shrapnel does not penetrate the
| fuselage. Engines are not happy ingesting a goose
| regardless of speed or altitude. There's a liner
| surrounding the turbine blades the must remain intact to
| pass the test.
| palijer wrote:
| Single engine failure is trained for quite extensively by
| pilots. Even 747 pilots regularly train for a dual engine
| failure on the same side landing.
| spoonfeeder006 wrote:
| Collision with a bird can take down a fighter jet. So a circuit
| board can probably do that too
|
| If these have low radar signature, and they are below 60k feet
| then they could be a problem at least at night, and maybe
| during the day too
| outworlder wrote:
| > People keep saying a lightweight craft under six pounds poses
| no threat to commercial aviation, but is that really true?
|
| Most likely.
|
| Even more so for lighter than air aircraft. An airliner
| traveling at Mach 0.8 would most most likely push this tiny
| thing out of the way like a feather even if it was in the
| flight path.
|
| Note that, regarding your pitot tube example, they are
| _pointy_. And heated. Assuming the balloon would even be hit
| and have its fabric intact, it would still be punched right
| through.
|
| Remember, 90000 pound aircraft traveling at Mach 0.8 (for an
| average 737) against a lighter than air balloon where the most
| rigid components are small circuit boards and thin solar
| panels. There isn't even an electronics case in most instances.
|
| Maybe engines would ingest it, but they wouldn't even notice.
| petee wrote:
| https://udayton.edu/udri/news/18-09-13-risk-in-the-sky.php
|
| Thats just a 2lb drone and it rips into the leading edge of a
| small craft, imagine at 500+ mph.
|
| Another good example is the Columbia disaster; it was just a
| piece of foam
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > Another good example is the Columbia disaster; it was just
| a piece of foam
|
| Icy foam knocking a tile loose is not a critical problem for
| an airplane.
| bigtex88 wrote:
| That's not the point and you know it. Don't be pedantic. It
| doesn't help the conversation. The above poster is saying
| that even small problems can lead to catastrophic
| consequences in complicated machines.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > The above poster is saying that even small problems can
| lead to catastrophic consequences in complicated
| machines.
|
| Sure, but they picked an example that's outside of this
| kind of aircraft's spec, so it's not clear that it's
| applicable. Bad examples deserve to be called out.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| Who's being pedantic here? The conversation is about a
| complete fiction, since a balloon never caused an
| airliner to crash. Why do we have to entertain that
| scenario that never actually happened, and how does that
| help the conversation about the danger of balloons to air
| traffic?
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| I'm not being pedantic. I'm pointing out that the example
| is a corner case that is irrelevant to this topic.
|
| > The above poster is saying that even small problems can
| lead to catastrophic consequences in complicated
| machines.
|
| That's a _very_ generic statement. Are you sure that was
| their real point? Not something more specific to air
| strikes?
| petee wrote:
| It was my point, and i thought it was clear enough that
| it was just a comparison of projectile to target, and the
| damage a tiny object can cause; I should have added more
| words, maybe. Most at NASA thought that the foam couldn't
| have damaged the spacecraft, and they were wrong.
|
| If a drone penetrates the wing, we don't really know if
| it can make it to the fuel tank when it hits at 500...
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| If your point is "small problems can lead to catastrophic
| consequences in complicated machines" then it's not
| helpful, because we have more specific information for
| planes that overrides such a generic statement.
| sbradford26 wrote:
| Yeah... your typical aircraft is not reaching Mach 20 where
| a hole would cause high temperatures leading to structural
| failure. Concerns about balloons and such can be valid but
| a comparison to Columbia is a big stretch.
| petee wrote:
| Clearly i should have added more words as I thought it
| was obvious I was just comparing projectile vs target;
| ie, just because an object is small or light doesn't mean
| it can't cause significant damage, and we don't have a
| lot of research into it.
|
| If it penetrates the wing, can it hit the fuel tank?
|
| And 6lb of metal hits different than 6lb of goose,
| depending on what it hits. Hail can destroy a radome.
| kelnos wrote:
| Fuel tanks are kevlar-lined nowadays, no? Certainly that
| doesn't make them invulnerable, but they can take quite a
| beating before they start leaking or worse.
| thrashh wrote:
| But people have been doing it for decades and most people
| didn't even know about them so maybe everyone's making a deal
| of a non-problem?
| barkerja wrote:
| All kinds of FOD (foreign object damage) can cause issue,
| regardless of its size or material. Look at what damage a small
| bird can deal, especially to a jet engine.
| akira2501 wrote:
| The pitot and static are usually redundant.
|
| In the case of Aeroperu, it was being serviced, and so _all_
| the static ports were taped over with duct tape. Which is an
| extremely unusual maintenance procedure and resulting failure
| mode, and in flight you wouldn't expect all of them to fail
| simultaneously, even after an impact with an foreign object.
|
| And critically, in their case, the ground radar warning system
| was working; however, due to all the other failures and alarms
| occurring on the flight deck, they did not notice or did not
| pay attention to this alarm.
|
| Modern aviation is so filled with redundancies and double
| checks that most disasters are the result of a long sequence of
| chained failures, and not due to a single piece of equipment
| becoming inoperative.
| causi wrote:
| _The launch teams seldom recover their balloons._
|
| _reported its last position on Feb. 10 at 38,910 ft. off the
| west coast of Alaska_
|
| Oh neat, I always wanted to be a litterbug and a floating
| aviation hazard at the same time. If you launch something into
| the sky, be it a drone or a balloon, you should be responsible
| for retrieving it.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| >aviation hazard
|
| I guess you know more than almost every single aviation
| regulator in the world, since they don't usually consider that
| type of usage to be dangerous to airplanes?
| [deleted]
| fuckHNtho wrote:
| [dead]
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Regarding small research balloons: that has never been the
| case.
|
| Even the NWS has a return rate of 20% for the radiosondes they
| attach to weather balloons.
|
| Not saying a rules change can't be considered, but the current
| rules are "n'ah." No more than people are expected to retrieve
| their plain-old helium balloons from birthday parties (and we
| _know_ those do ecological damage).
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > n'ah
|
| I don't think I've seen an apostrophe there before. Was that
| intentional?
| shadowgovt wrote:
| It was.
| jakear wrote:
| I get that NOAA and NWS and whomever else release balloons
| that they never see again, but those at lease provide helpful
| data that benefits the public in some way. These seem to
| just... blast some portion of the EM spectrum with their
| location?
| shadowgovt wrote:
| The interesting data they provide is how they move and the
| air currents that cause that motion.
|
| Amateur science is still science and woe betide the free
| people that moves towards reserving science to
| professionals disproportionate to risk of harm.
| jakear wrote:
| Whats the bar for the amount/type of data an individual
| needs to collect for the random trash they discard in the
| sea to be "science"?
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Pretty low. Successfully crafting it, getting it off the
| ground, and having it go as far as the ocean without
| popping is a pretty good accomplishment providing value
| disproportionate to cost.
|
| More environmental damage was likely done fabricating the
| plastics in the balloon than crashing it into the sea.
| jakear wrote:
| I spend most of my days picking up trash from the ocean
| (<1 mile away from me). Suffice to say, our perceptions
| of the difficulty and nobility of throwing trash into it
| are vastly different.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| What percentage of that trash is scientific experiments?
| jakear wrote:
| Well trash just looks like trash when its trash, so it's
| hard to say for sure. Definitely enough mylar to really
| get some fantastic data.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _I always wanted to be a litterbug and a floating aviation
| hazard at the same time._
|
| It's not hard to find a dead endangered tortoise in the Mojave
| Desert because of people in Los Angeles letting their mylar
| Happy Birthday balloons float away.
|
| It's usually on purpose, because they can't think of anything
| farther than the end of their noses.
|
| I have noticed, however, in some other parts of the country and
| the world (Australia), that people have started to realize that
| they are polluting in ways they didn't think of before.
| TedShiller wrote:
| > Oh neat, I always wanted to be a litterbug
|
| Exactly. We're worried about plastic pollution in the
| wilderness unless it's floating in the air, got it.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| If you think about it for a few seconds, quantity is the
| important factor here.
| rmason wrote:
| Why isn't there a website where a student or hobbyist group can
| register their balloons before they launch? So the FAA knows
| what balloons are in the air at any given time. I'd bet they're
| already tracking the governments weather balloons right now.
|
| Right now it would be a fools errand to launch a balloon and
| actually expect it wouldn't be shot down.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Why isn't there a website where a student or hobbyist group
| can register their balloons before they launch?
|
| My local school district launched a balloon. It's made four
| trips around the world. What good would registering the
| launch site have done?
| krisoft wrote:
| If your payload is above a certain weight limit or density
| you have to inform the FAA under part 101.7. You can
| obviously opt to inform them even if you are under those
| limits. (There are some safety equipment you have to design
| into your unmanned balloon if it falls under part 101.7, such
| as a radar retro reflector and redundant flight termination
| system.)
| nodesocket wrote:
| Is it just me, or is the tone of the title and this article a
| little absurd? "Feared"? It's a hobby balloon for goodness sake,
| it's not a human being. We are living in a extremely heightened
| state of alert and security and frankly we all should be worrying
| a lot more about larger problems than science experiment
| balloons.
| krisoft wrote:
| I think "feared" in this context means they think it happened
| but have no proof of it.
|
| > We are living in a extremely heightened state of alert and
| security
|
| I recommend that you take deep breaths. There are many worrying
| things but none of them will be better handled by panicking
| over them.
| lukewrites wrote:
| I've been talking to my five year old about weather balloons
| lately and he's interested in launching one of his own to try to
| get a picture of the Earth's curvature. Can anyone recommend
| resources on this topic? Surely there are hobby groups around but
| I must not be searching for the right combo of keywords - haven't
| found anything.
| prawn wrote:
| Doesn't answer your question, but if you're not aware, try
| watching some of Mark Rober's videos on YouTube with him. There
| was one recently about trying to safely drop an egg from space.
| He'd probably enjoy a lot of the other videos as well,
| including the squirrel obstacle courses.
| tcmart14 wrote:
| Check out the Ham radio community. There are amateurs who
| launch balloons and put things on board like radio with APRS
| and such. You might get some good ideas and help your kid down
| the road to a pretty interesting hobby.
| spoonfeeder006 wrote:
| Have you looked up FAA regulations?
|
| https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html...
|
| Also, might be good to look into putting a device that will
| broadcast its location via radio or radar. I believe that above
| 60k feet airspace is unrestricted, but up till there it might
| be a good idea
|
| Plus a broadcast signal might scream "This isn't a spy balloon"
| to USAF lol
| pfych wrote:
| I've only just got into radio after hearing about these pico
| balloons. I've found a decent community over on r/RTLSDR that
| share information and pictures about hobbyist/DIY radio stuff.
| I picked up the recommended gear for about $40 and will be
| trying to receive transmissions around my area.
|
| From some posts there it looks like even beginner gear can get
| images from the NOAA weather satellites.
| bmitc wrote:
| These balloons don't seem to match the, however brief,
| descriptions of what was shot down. Also, do they not have
| mechanisms that report the balloon's position? Seems like a lot
| of speculation.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Also, do they not have mechanisms that report the balloon's
| position?
|
| Pico balloon payloads look like this: https://www.rmham.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2021/02/IMG_5385-sc...
|
| Most ADS-B transponders are substantially larger than the
| entire payload.
| ianburrell wrote:
| I wonder if APRS transmitter would be acceptable as
| transponder.
|
| It should be possible to make a tiny, cheap ADS-B
| transponder. They are similar to APRS, with GPS and VHF
| radio. But there really isn't a market now for small ones,
| and there are regulations that make expensive.
| ianburrell wrote:
| I don't think we have a description of the Canada object that
| is suspected to be this balloon. The car-sized cylindrical
| object in Alaska could easily be a balloon if the shape was
| misreported. The octagonal object in Lake Huron trailing cables
| could have similarly misreported.
|
| It is hard for fighter pilots to observe small objects passing
| by them at high speed. I also suspect that they will see
| balloon as interesting object when can't see the payload.
| Sharlin wrote:
| Identification missions are supposed to also photograph the
| target though, presumably with an appropriate telephoto
| camera. No need to rely solely on the Mk I eyeball. But
| admittedly that's not trivial either at high relative
| velocities.
| jhbadger wrote:
| "Three countries--North Korea, Yemen and the UK--restrict
| transmissions from balloons in their airspace, so the community
| has integrated geofencing software into the tracking devices. The
| balloons still overfly the countries, but do not transmit their
| positions over their airspace."
|
| That's an interesting collection of countries. Why I wonder the
| UK and not other Western countries?
| anfractuosity wrote:
| You can from what I understand transmit RF from balloons -
| https://ukhas.org.uk/doku.php?id=start has lots of info. There
| are limitations on what frequencies and power you can transmit
| at, iirc the power is around 10mW.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| The UK has some strange leftover laws about radio
| communication. Recently there was a post here about their
| system of TV detector vans to collect license fees for public
| television (something most sensible countries have put into
| their normal taxes a long time ago). And the UK for example is
| also missing from Live ATC because listening to (open,
| unencrypted) ATC communications is illegal there.
| valdiorn wrote:
| Fyi TV detector vans are essentially fearmongering by the
| government. A freedom of information request recently
| revealed not a single prosecution has been generated from the
| use of those vans since the project's alleged start in the
| early 50s.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van
| baybal2 wrote:
| [dead]
| retube wrote:
| TV detector vans are a myth
| cmsj wrote:
| They certainly built some, but it does seem more like a
| publicity stunt or occasionally touring enforcement option,
| than any kind of seriously pursued plan.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van
| mhh__ wrote:
| Completely possible technologically, though.
| jedberg wrote:
| From what I've read, they do exist, but have never been
| successful in catching anyone.
| TecoAndJix wrote:
| I found this article from 2021 [1]
|
| " Modern efforts to detect licence evasion are shrouded
| in mystery. Modern flatscreen displays receiving digital
| television signals do not emit as much radio frequency
| interference as older designs, and any such signals
| detected are less easily correlated with broadcast
| television. An LCD television in the home can just as
| easily be displaying output from a video game console or
| an online streaming service, with both being usage cases
| that do not require the owner to pay a licence fee. Based
| on an alleged BBC submission for a search warrant in
| recent years, there may be optical methods used in which
| reflected light from a television in a viewer's home is
| compared to a live broadcast signal. The BBC declined to
| answer the Freedom of Information request with any
| details of their methods, other than to say they have
| employed vehicles and handheld devices in enforcement
| efforts."
|
| https://hackaday.com/2021/01/18/tv-detector-vans-once-
| prowle...
| Erwin wrote:
| It's funny because we have labelled "TV Inspektion" vans
| all over the place -- but those are for robotic camera
| examination of a stuck sewer line!
|
| (After many years of public broadcasting being charged if
| you have a TV -- or even a PC or mobile phone with TV
| capability -- the charges now go through the normal tax
| system, so you no longer have to worry about the real TV
| inspection people asking to come in to see if you have a
| TV!).
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > UK for example is also missing from Live ATC because
| listening to (open, unencrypted) ATC communications is
| illegal there.
|
| Actually no.
|
| You _CAN_ listen to it. Anyone is free to buy a scanner.
|
| You _CANNOT_ record it or redistribute it.
| registeredcorn wrote:
| I listen to a a few ATC YouTube channels like
| VASAviation[1], Mentour Pilot[2], 74 Gear[3]. Are you say
| that if VAS, etc. put up a video of UK ATC traffic, while
| in the UK, they could be punished for that? Are we talking
| some 5 pound fine, or is that something closer to an
| arrestable offense? My assumption is it falls under some
| vague "safety and security" measure in response to 9/11,
| but that would raise questions about just having it
| encrypted, instead.
|
| Honestly, the concept of this being illegal is shocking to
| me. I had assumed recording/playback of ATC comms was
| essentially a universal standard practice (minus Military,
| police ops, etc.) to help with education and training. It
| seems like a terrible shame that the UK would have such a
| strange rule barring it.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/@VASAviation
|
| [2] https://www.youtube.com/@MentourPilot
|
| [3] https://www.youtube.com/@74gear
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > put up a video of UK ATC traffic, while in the UK, they
| could be punished for that?
|
| Yes
|
| > are we talking some 5 pound fine, or is that something
| closer to an arrestable offense?
|
| In the UK criminal offences are generally dealt with
| reasonably softly, i.e. within the context of the
| criminal and the severity of the crime.
|
| With something like this, which would be a criminal
| offence similar to re-distributing paid TV services you
| would normally just go through various levels of fine
| depending on severity/scale.
|
| So a website explicitly setup to distribute recordings
| could expect quite a heavy fine because (a) they were
| knowingly doing it, and (b) they were distributing to a
| large global audience.
|
| Chances of being arrested on this sort of offence in the
| UK is highly unlikely. Maybe if you were a repeat
| offender you might leave them with little choice, but
| that's probably the only scenario.
| larrywright wrote:
| As I understand it, pager messages are the same way. At
| least in the US, they're transmitted unencrypted, and
| anyone with a $25 SDR dongle and some free software can
| receive them. But it's illegal to, say, put them up on a
| website.
| pc86 wrote:
| > _Anyone is free to buy a scanner._
|
| "Technically possible" doesn't always mean "legally
| permissible."
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > "Technically possible" doesn't always mean "legally
| permissible."
|
| In the UK if a radio device is 'inherently incapable of
| transmission', you do not need a licence to install or
| use it. A scanner is very much that.
|
| It is legal to use a scanner in the UK as long as it is
| clear from the context that the message being listened to
| was intended for general reception. There are many
| circumstances in aviation where this could be the case.
| bitwize wrote:
| > In the UK if a radio device is 'inherently incapable of
| transmission', you do not need a licence to install or
| use it.
|
| Oi, you got a loicense for that television receiver,
| mate?
| midasuni wrote:
| Don't need a license to have a TV, or a license to use it
| to receive many signals.
|
| You need a license to receive a television programme
| service, which I believe is defined as a service being
| transmitted by an ofcom registered television station.
| 867-5309 wrote:
| doesn't exactly roll off the tongue though does it
| cmsj wrote:
| ATC is not meant for general reception. radio stations,
| weather/navigation broadcasts, amateur radio bands, etc.
| are intended for general reception. ATC is intended for
| airport staff and aircraft, so it is technically illegal
| to listen to it in the UK.
|
| See https://www.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/interference-
| enforcement/r...
| wpietri wrote:
| I love this "meant for". It seems very in line with
| British politeness to treat certain broadcasts you
| receive as things that just weren't meant for you, so
| let's all pretend that you didn't get them.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > It seems very in line with British politeness to treat
| certain broadcasts you receive as things that just
| weren't meant for you, so let's all pretend that you
| didn't get them.
|
| That's basically how the actual law on this matter is
| worded, i.e. "don't listen, but if you did listen, don't
| tell anyone".
|
| Section 48, Wireless Telegraphy Act[1], notice the clever
| little _" or"_ at the end of (1)(a).
|
| So 48(1) is telling you: "don't use it with
| intent"(1)(a), but if you do don't be that person who
| "discloses information"(1)(b).
|
| [1]
| https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/section/48
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > ATC is not meant for general reception
|
| Not quite so black and white.
|
| One easy example I can think of in the UK is
| uncontrolled/semi-controlled airspace (class E/G) and
| uncontrolled airfields. Parties transmitting on those
| frequencies are basically sending broadcast messages for
| the benefit of anyone listening in order to inform those
| unknown parties of their location and intentions.
|
| See also, for example, this reply to an FOI request[1], I
| quote:
|
| _Whether or not an aeronautical transmission was
| intended for general reception would depend on all of the
| circumstances of the transmission. We cannot therefore
| say, generally, whether or not listening to these
| transmissions would be an offence._
|
| [1] https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/air_band_liste
| ning_an...
| InCityDreams wrote:
| >(something most sensible countries have put into their
| normal taxes a long time ago).
|
| Yeah, italy - putting the license fee in the electricity
| bills.
| secondcoming wrote:
| Those detector vans were a hoax. I don't have a TV licence
| because I don't fit any of the criteria for requiring one.
| Screw taking it out of my tax instead.
| ntauthority wrote:
| Germany solved that issue by making owning any device
| capable of receiving internet broadcasts part of the
| eligibility criteria. By that point they could just as well
| make it part of general tax budgets...
| culturestate wrote:
| Germany just sends a bill to every registered resident,
| no matter what.
|
| The Rundfunkbeitrag is applied per _household,_ not based
| on devices, and it 's up to each person to either pay the
| tax or justify to the Beitragsservice that they don't
| need to.
| throwaway67743 wrote:
| Actually they were a thing, briefly, but technology
| rendered them obsolete as quickly as they appeared (better
| shielding to avoid interference etc) - but they remained a
| deterrent for quite a while
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| _> Those detector vans were a hoax._
|
| Their existence was not[0]. Maybe they didn't work. It
| sounds like they may have been a paper tiger.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van
| ithkuil wrote:
| Some countries have a very interesting way to frame the
| requirements: "any device through which you can listen/view
| broadcasts produced by the national radio/television". When
| they stream national video/radio online it automatically
| qualifies every computer or smartphone or car radio as a
| device that makes you required to pay the tv fee
| jamescun wrote:
| I'm based in the UK and have a passive interest in amateur
| radio. If I had to guess, it isn't outright forbidden, just a
| licensed activity. Maybe the license isn't easy to get or
| widely granted?
| alibarber wrote:
| Obtaining an amateur radio licence in the UK is fairly
| trivial. The courses and exams are administered by volunteers
| so the hardest part is finding availability to align with
| your schedule. COVID really helped because it became possible
| to take the exams online.
|
| There are 3 levels, Foundation through to Full which come
| with different privileges. You can achieve a lot with the
| basic Foundation.
|
| In terms of airborne transmitting - yes the UK is an outlier.
| It is forbidden to make amateur radio transmissions in the
| air over the UK, or use a UK licence to do so anywhere I
| think. The key word here is amateur - so specifically on
| those bands and with that licence. I think the ISM bands
| would be fine - and there are balloon projects and clubs in
| the UK.
|
| I have a Finnish amateur licence in parallel and that doesn't
| have this restriction but naturally it would still not be
| allowed to use it to transmit from an aircraft over the UK.
| And even if it were to be elsewhere there are still some
| rules surrounding that, and it's hopefully obvious that you
| need permission of whoever's in charge of the aircraft.
| dylan604 wrote:
| you have to have a license to watch television for chris'
| sake, so it absolutely falls in line you'd need licensing to
| transmit. you probably have to have licenses in your kid's
| walkie-talkies. this is the same country that has the
| national power grid introduce "hum" (or whatever it is
| technically callled) in the signal so that a time reference
| can be decoded from it.
| Twisol wrote:
| > this is the same country that has the national power grid
| introduce "hum" (or whatever it is technically callled) in
| the signal so that a time reference can be decoded from it.
|
| I don't think that's intentionally introduced. My
| understanding was that mains hum in any grid is an artifact
| of a noisy signal that just happens to be useful as a
| forensics fingerprint.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mains_hum
| dylan604 wrote:
| Yes, it seems I crossed a few streams in my head. Here's
| an article[0] talking about how the forensics is done
| because someone is creating a database of all of the
| fluctuations that give it the forensic finger print
| rather than it being deliberately injected.
|
| [0]https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-20629671
| bodge5000 wrote:
| Its not really a license as much as it is a fee, even if it
| is called that. It'd be like calling taxes a life-license
| or something. Also worth noting its not the only country
| that has one, just off the top of my head I know that
| Ireland, Switzerland and Japan have them as well
| throwaway67743 wrote:
| Transmission outside of unlicensed bands requires a license,
| amateur radio has a license requirement to teach
| responsibility and proper clue, which isn't a bad thing per
| se
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > Why I wonder the UK and not other Western countries?
|
| Pretty much the missing word here is ... _UNLICENSED_.
| kawfey wrote:
| UK has weird laws. Airborne operation of amateur radio is
| prohibited in the UK.
|
| Yemen and NK ban amateur radio outright, with very few
| exceptions for things like DXpeditions or royalty.
|
| No other countries specifically call out a prohibition of
| airborne amateur radio operation; either they explicitly allow
| it or they don't specify.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23803850
|
| [PDF]
| https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/82637/a...
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Doesn't UK also have some extra regulation about unmanned
| transmitters and repeaters? There is a "pistar-keeper"
| functionality in dmr hotspots (pi-star), that disables
| transmission if the operator('s phone) isn't close by
| (distance is detected via bluetooth).
| nradov wrote:
| Yemen isn't even a country anymore, so people there can do
| whatever the hell the want if they can avoid getting shot.
| CraigJPerry wrote:
| I've tried twice to challenge the ofcom restriction, they
| opened a consultation but frustratingly the RSGB position is
| against this change.
| alibarber wrote:
| That's really interesting to hear - I'd like to read more
| about their stance on this.
| CraigJPerry wrote:
| One thing they're pretty good at is documenting
| everything, i'd start here:
| https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-
| statements/catego...
| terinjokes wrote:
| As a US ham currently studying to become a UK ham, that's
| very interesting to me. Did they say why they oppose
| something regularly allowed elsewhere?
| CraigJPerry wrote:
| Formally - no, i think the official stance last i saw was
| that you can submit a request for a "notice of variation"
| on your licence but i don't know of anyone who's done
| that and from my knowledge of other NoVs that have been
| granted i expect it could be hobbled in some way. E.g. in
| the uk a full licence holder may transmit at up to 400w
| on most bands but you can submit for a NoV to be able to
| transmit at 1kw like the US - except the NoV can carry
| constraints like you must not transmit your call sign.
| That's not a typo, you must NOT transmit your callsign
| when using 1kw. It'll depend on the reason for the NoV
| being issued though.
|
| Informally i've had nothing but condescending dismissal
| on airborne operation because i mentioned some
| experiments involving a drone (my other hobby).
| mhandley wrote:
| It's not that you cannot transmit from a high altitude balloon
| over the UK, but you are very restricted in transmit power and
| frequencies. My son and a friend of his built a Muon detector
| and sent it up under a high altitude balloon as a school
| science project. We tracked and chased it for 200 miles across
| England and recovered it eventually, a little the worse for
| wear. His was set up to transmit location, altitude, and muon
| flux in case we didn't recover it. It had three radios - two
| low bitrate RTTY transmitters at very low power (10mW?) and
| GPRS which was set up to only switch on after landing to help
| recovery (it's not legal to transmit GPRS while airborne). The
| RTTY turned out to be very reliable, even at 50 mile range, and
| especially with other HAB hobbists kindly relaying data back
| via the Internet. This was especially useful to locate the
| landing site when the balloon outran us and dropped below our
| radio horizon. The GPRS never worked, but that may have been
| because it landed in a pigsty and was attacked by the pig.
| Anyway, there's quite an active UK high altitude balloon
| community.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >Why I wonder the UK and not other Western countries?
|
| probably because the gov't hates competition.
| e4e5 wrote:
| Also see here: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/02/16/us/biden-
| china-ballo...
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Red Scare!
| moomoo11 wrote:
| I'm imagining Tom Cruise being serious and doing all sorts of
| crazy maneuvers to take down enemy hostile bogeys.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| bandits
| yawnxyz wrote:
| "Air Force pilot shooting down 6yo's birthday balloon" is going
| to be a popular Halloween costume this year...
| mr_toad wrote:
| An F22 strafing children's birthday party balloons sound like a
| sub plot from South Park episode.
| [deleted]
| hoppyhoppy2 wrote:
| See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34814717
| password4321 wrote:
| A link to buy a balloon of your own!
|
| https://balloons.online/orbs-32-silver/
| chrismsimpson wrote:
| Queue "Frolic" by Luciano Michelini
| zxcvbn4038 wrote:
| A large weather balloon is like $100 and the sidewinder missiles
| being used to shoot them down cost ~$500,000. If some prankster
| launched a thousand balloons wouldn't it cost half a billion
| dollars to shoot them all down? "I'm Steve-O and this is the moon
| festival..."
| [deleted]
| smm11 wrote:
| The remaining two ballons were from a birthday party in Sitka,
| AK.
| fuoqi wrote:
| I wonder if Russia and/or China will start launching a bunch of
| relatively cheap stratospheric balloons with foil-covered
| cardboard boxes to imitate payloads to troll the US and make it
| spend millions on shooting them down. To make the trolling a bit
| less obvious they even may add some innocent recording devices to
| claim that they are "scientific experiments".
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| guluarte wrote:
| using ballons as a ddos attack, making the usaf spend 500k per
| each
| arcticfox wrote:
| Everyone acting like the USAF has never scrambled jets and
| fired AIM9Xs before for practice... the 3 so far have been a
| more fun (and probably more effective) training program.
|
| If somebody starts sending thousands...the retaliation
| clearly isn't going to be against the balloons, but against
| the sender.
| someweirdperson wrote:
| At that scale, a change to true mass production of ordnance
| would occur, significantly reducing the price per piece.
| asdff wrote:
| Sounds like you are just making your adversary fund a jobs
| program you probably can't afford to keep up with. Bomber gap
| all over again.
| mauvehaus wrote:
| The Russians are already doing it in Ukraine:
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64661145
| throwaway67743 wrote:
| No, they "started" doing it the day after a fake spy balloon
| was shot down, it's narrative not truth (and actually soviet
| balloons predate everyone else by about 60 years)
| pixelesque wrote:
| The US was doing it on the Soviets and Chinese in the 50s:
| https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/cold-war-balloon-
| surve...
| throwaway67743 wrote:
| Yeah, but actually the Soviets started before then even,
| pioneers really - just like the Nazis pioneered a lot,
| but we can't possibly acknowledge that because they're
| evil
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| People talk about the millions of dollars of missiles like it
| is even a little significant to the USAF. They'll just write it
| off as live fire training.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Firing these four missiles isn't a significant use of their
| budget. If they start firing four missiles to destroy every
| three balloons out there it very quickly will be a massive
| cost.
| asdff wrote:
| Plus, if they started getting so many balloons where this
| is no longer feasible in cost as a method of bringing them
| down, it will create a lot of incentive to develop cheaper
| methods that wouldn't have been developed otherwise, and no
| other nation can keep up with the level of investment the
| U.S. can deliver on warmaking. Maybe it would have been
| better for you if you just didn't poke the bear and get it
| started on all these projects that are now undoubtedly
| going on behind the scenes because of all of this.
| wongarsu wrote:
| At that point they might remember they have 20mm gatling
| cannons on the F16 and F22. Not as cool or long range as
| missiles, but I imagine significantly cheaper to fire in
| short bursts.
| throwaway67743 wrote:
| Requires being able to aim, fighter or politics both shit
| out of luck ;)
| asdff wrote:
| these balloons are too high up sometimes to get in cannon
| range. then there's the question of where the bullets
| fall after they rip through the balloon, hopefully not on
| anyones house.
| shagie wrote:
| Bullets fired still land somewhere and are difficult to
| stop once they leave the gun.
|
| The F16 and F22 are somewhere in the 110 to 160 knot
| range for stall speed. The balloon, for all practical
| purposes, is 0 knots. Shooting at something straight
| ahead that isn't moving while you're moving at 160 knots
| may pose some more challenges than locking into it with a
| missile.
|
| A zero pressure balloon (
| https://www.nasa.gov/scientific-balloons/types-of-
| balloons ) is roughly equal pressure on the inside and
| outside. These balloons do not "pop" as such when
| punctured and may cause additional hazards as they
| descend uncontrolled.
| csours wrote:
| > They'll just write it off as live fire training.
|
| And then someone will complain. "If you're explaining
| yourself, you've already lost."
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| That's a small price to pay for all the smog in their air from
| producing our crap.
| justin66 wrote:
| Yeesh. This guy is not helping the future of his hobby, which I'm
| guessing is pretty precarious right now:
|
| _"I tried contacting our military and the FBI--and just got the
| runaround--to try to enlighten them on what a lot of these things
| probably are. And they're going to look not too intelligent to be
| shooting them down," says Ron Meadows, the founder of Scientific
| Balloon Solutions (SBS), a Silicon Valley company that makes
| purpose-built pico balloons for hobbyists, educators and
| scientists._
|
| In other news:
|
| _Biden wants 'sharper rules' on unknown aerial objects_
|
| https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-gove...
| daveslash wrote:
| Yeah, I agree. The " _they 're going to look not too
| intelligent to be shooting them down_" feels like a low-blow to
| me. Shooting them down seems like a perfectly reasonable thing
| to me at this time.
|
| Seems like we weren't even really looking for balloons until
| recently. Now that we've noticed the Chinese Spy balloon, we're
| reviewing radar logs with refined analysis and are finding some
| in the past. So we don't really know the characterization of
| this potential threat. Our ability to positively ID things in
| this realm is still developing. Until it's a matured
| discipline, seems reasonable to act with an abundance of
| caution.
|
| Even if the military could positively ID a pico balloon as
| such, who's to say pico balloons couldn't be used for nefarious
| purposes? Purposes still warranting being shot down? I could
| see the hobby moving to align with drones -- requiring FAA
| registration and a transponder. That seems like a solution that
| would allow well-intentioned pico balloons to continue
| operating and allow military to more easily discern: friend or
| foe?
| beebmam wrote:
| Weren't these balloons at the altitude level that civilian
| aircraft fly? How exactly is it legal to do what these guys
| claim to have been doing? This is bizarre stuff.
|
| This guy should be thankful he's not in prison yet, even though
| he should be.
| justin66 wrote:
| * * *
| jFriedensreich wrote:
| as predicted by nena in 1983. we have 96 more to go, brace for a
| long ride.
| hinata08 wrote:
| I just ctrl-Fed the comment section to find that ref. thank you
| ! that news enlightened my day.
|
| the coldwar style of conflict we're living, the harmless
| Luftballons auf ihrem weg zu Hoziron (compared to UFOs), and
| the fighter pilots who're "going to look not too intelligent to
| be shooting them down" make it really look like that song.
|
| now let's find out if we reach 99 luftballons, or some Dr
| Strangelove thing first
|
| ( a year before Nena made their song, NATO made an exercise
| with a plot that went all the way to using nuclear bombs _Able
| Archer 83_, and the Soviets almost retaliated to false warnings
| of ICBMs launches, that were issued by a computer that couldn't
| be wrong)
|
| How far are we actually from there with China ?
| stan3223 wrote:
| Wow. Knew '99 Luftballons' as a catchy song. Just checked
| lyrics thanks to your comment. Had no clue it was an anti-war
| song.
| jklinger410 wrote:
| It is so funny that it is literally as simple as: Air Force found
| one Chinrese balloon and now they are shooting down every similar
| one. I'm imagining some red-faced colonel barking this order,
| embarrassed by being caught on their ass about the first balloon.
|
| I would be absolutely SHOCKED if this represented anything more
| than simple incompetence.
|
| This will be followed shortly by new regulations emulating what
| other countries do about their air space.
|
| This whole balloon fiasco is a straightforward case of CYA. Which
| is why we have no details, and everyone thinks they are UFOs now.
| Priceless.
| [deleted]
| ScoobleDoodle wrote:
| CYA: cover your ass
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| There is no way to know what it is exactly until you shoot it
| down.
| [deleted]
| Barrin92 wrote:
| That sentence qualifies for America's 21st century national
| slogan, and not just in the military.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Is it inaccurate?
| pastacacioepepe wrote:
| > "I tried contacting our military and the FBI--and just got the
| runaround--to try to enlighten them on what a lot of these things
| probably are. And they're going to look not too intelligent to be
| shooting them down," says Ron Meadows, the founder of Scientific
| Balloon Solutions (SBS)
|
| Way to overreact, USA. It feels like they're just looking for
| excuses to escalate the situation with China. As if what's going
| on already in the rest of the world wasn't enough.
| throwaway67743 wrote:
| Well duh, that's the narrative, curtailing their own freedom is
| just collateral damage
| karaterobot wrote:
| > In fact, the pico balloons weigh less than 6 lb. and therefore
| are exempt from most FAA airspace restrictions, Meadows and
| Medlin said.
|
| Is this 6 pound rule up to date with the weight of actual
| surveillance and broadcast equipment? Feels like you could do a
| lot with 6 lbs.
| jaywalk wrote:
| That rule is strictly related to safety, not dealing with
| whatever the balloons might be doing.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-16 23:00 UTC)