Why couldn't they just shoot a hole in the Chinese balloon and let it drift down and recover most everything without the compromise of so much damage. I liked seeing the YF22 shoot it down , but a couple of smaller holes in the balloon would have made for a better recovery, maybe somewhere over Alaska. OBTP

On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 6:20:18 PM UTC-5, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why couldn't they just shoot a hole in the Chinese balloon and let it drift down and recover most everything without the compromise of so much damage. I liked seeing the YF22 shoot it down , but a couple of smaller holes in the balloon would have made for a better recovery, maybe somewhere over Alaska. OBTP

I thought the same thing.
They wanted it down in territorial waters and maybe they were not sure how many rounds it would take to get it down quick enough.
Or maybe it was too high for guns
Or maybe they just didn't think of it.
For sure whatever they chose to do would be wrong.
UH

> > Why couldn't they just shoot a hole in the Chinese balloon and let it drift down and recover most everything without the compromise of so much damage. I liked seeing the YF22 shoot it down , but a couple of smaller holes in the balloon would have made for a better recovery, maybe somewhere over Alaska. OBTP

By the time the Administration decided to do something, the balloon had drifted from Alaska all the way across the continental United States and was finally brought down in the Atlantic Ocean. To be fair, there was a concern about the instrument package possibly hitting the ground in a populated area.

On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 7:38:34 PM UTC-5, Hank Nixon wrote:
> On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 6:20:18 PM UTC-5, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Why couldn't they just shoot a hole in the Chinese balloon and let it drift down and recover most everything without the compromise of so much damage. I liked seeing the YF22 shoot it down , but a couple of smaller holes in the balloon would have made for a better recovery, maybe somewhere over Alaska. OBTP
> I thought the same thing.
> They wanted it down in territorial waters and maybe they were not sure how many rounds it would take to get it down quick enough.
> Or maybe it was too high for guns
> Or maybe they just didn't think of it.
> For sure whatever they chose to do would be wrong.
> UH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The balloon could have been 5-7K ft above the Raptor's max altitude, which
would have been pretty far off for a gun shot, although it was a big target..
I shot a lot of 20mm rounds from that M61 gatling gun over the years. It fires
at the rate of 100 rounds per second. So, it is not so easy to be dainty with it.
I have seen people qualifying at the gunnery range fire off a very short "sighter"
burst where they managed to only squeeze off between 1 and 10 rounds, but
for the most part a "short burst" is around 25 rounds which is a very quick flick
of the finger. 25 rounds would pretty well have shredded that bag. AFAIK, they
used an AIM-9X with an inert warhead to punch a hole in the bag, but obviously
the differential pressures caused a fairly instant deflation.

RO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The reason for not shooting down the balloon is for counterintelligence. The Chinese are probing our encryption capabilities as we evaluate what information they find important. Use of a non threatening ‘wx’ balloon to twerk the population. Could be in retaliation for something the US is doing to them. Several times the NSA has orbited the X-37 for extended time in space to do what?
NORAD can track a softball, highly unlikely a balloon with 2 tons of metal attach would go undetected. The Chinese know this. The idea of risk (.000371%) to people on the ground is ‘balloony’. If there was a security threat, the lost of a few humans with a 68% chance they would be illegals ( they shouldn’t have been breaking the law defense) is very acceptable to stop the threat. Hell, 97.7% of the US land area is uninhabited. Greater chance of a purist killing someone landing out.
Watching the goofy Brigadier General on the news trying to justify the balloon story without laughing was in itself telling. The NSA didn’t want to shoot it down. The Republicans use it effectively to buffoon Biden. In the end the pressure was too much. Down it came.
Hey, there’s another one! 🛸🎈

R

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 6:02:22 AM UTC-5, R wrote:
> The reason for not shooting down the balloon is for counterintelligence. The Chinese are probing our encryption capabilities as we evaluate what information they find important. Use of a non threatening ‘wx’ balloon to twerk the population. Could be in retaliation for something the US is doing to them. Several times the NSA has orbited the X-37 for extended time in space to do what?
> NORAD can track a softball, highly unlikely a balloon with 2 tons of metal attach would go undetected. The Chinese know this. The idea of risk (.000371%) to people on the ground is ‘balloony’. If there was a security threat, the lost of a few humans with a 68% chance they would be illegals ( they shouldn’t have been breaking the law defense) is very acceptable to stop the threat. Hell, 97.7% of the US land area is uninhabited. Greater chance of a purist killing someone landing out.
> Watching the goofy Brigadier General on the news trying to justify the balloon story without laughing was in itself telling. The NSA didn’t want to shoot it down. The Republicans use it effectively to buffoon Biden. In the end the pressure was too much. Down it came.
> Hey, there’s another one! 🛸🎈
>
> R

I think there is a difference between satellite surveillance from outer space and flying within the airspace of a sovereign country. They have their own satellite surveillance capability, China's intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance-capable (ISR) satellite fleet had more than 260 systems, second only to the U.S., as of the end of 2021. It should have been shot down when it penetrated the ADIZ at Alaska. Lots of empty space on which it could fall.

Walt Connelly

According to this article, filling the balloon full of bullet holes was unlikely to bring it down:
https://www.businessinsider.com/runaway-weather-balloon-fighter-jets-history-2023-2

…

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:22:21 AM UTC-8, Gianni Isotope wrote:
> According to this article, filling the balloon full of bullet holes was unlikely to bring it down:
> https://www.businessinsider.com/runaway-weather-balloon-fighter-jets-history-2023-2

I feel the need to come to the defense of the good old Air Core………….firing thousands of rounds of 20mm over land might not do the trick and all those rounds will land somewhere that might have inhabitants, even in Montana? Firing the Sidewinder that is a heat- seeker with a passive radar mode, might not do the trick, either? No one knew for sure that it would track a balloon…….how much heat is a balloon going to produce at 50,000+ feet? Remember it’s minus 55C up there. If the sidewinder didn’t track the balloon it has been known to go after something else that’s producing more heat, like Joe Cessna or how about an airliner? Talk about a major screwup, that would beat everything? I think they chose the safest option by clearing all traffic in the area and then firing the sidewinder on an easterly heading with the sun behind the F-22………yes the sidewinder has been known to go after the sun!

And, to answer another bad-mouthing of the USAF on this net………the Air Force Academy is in the business of producing leaders who obey orders! Standing orders for their sailplane fleet were to land and disassemble all gliders anytime thunderstorms were forecast within 5 miles of the airport! Yes, doing that changed the scoring and adversely effected some competitors………….I believe that standing order has been resented!

Wow, good to get that said, I feel much better now,
JJ

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 12:04:08 PM UTC-5, John Sinclair wrote:
> …
> On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:22:21 AM UTC-8, Gianni Isotope wrote:
> > According to this article, filling the balloon full of bullet holes was unlikely to bring it down:
> > https://www.businessinsider.com/runaway-weather-balloon-fighter-jets-history-2023-2
> I feel the need to come to the defense of the good old Air Core………….firing thousands of rounds of 20mm over land might not do the trick and all those rounds will land somewhere that might have inhabitants, even in Montana? Firing the Sidewinder that is a heat- seeker with a passive radar mode, might not do the trick, either? No one knew for sure that it would track a balloon…….how much heat is a balloon going to produce at 50,000+ feet? Remember it’s minus 55C up there. If the sidewinder didn’t track the balloon it has been known to go after something else that’s producing more heat, like Joe Cessna or how about an airliner? Talk about a major screwup, that would beat everything? I think they chose the safest option by clearing all traffic in the area and then firing the sidewinder on an easterly heading with the sun behind the F-22………yes the sidewinder has been known to go after the sun!
>
> And, to answer another bad-mouthing of the USAF on this net………the Air Force Academy is in the business of producing leaders who obey orders! Standing orders for their sailplane fleet were to land and disassemble all gliders anytime thunderstorms were forecast within 5 miles of the airport! Yes, doing that changed the scoring and adversely effected some competitors………….I believe that standing order has been resented!
>
> Wow, good to get that said, I feel much better now,
> JJ
Not bad mouthing the Air Force, but the private sector could have accomplished the mission much better with a beam of lase light that could hace burned a hole in the balloon and started a decent that could have been managable and slow. Why wait so long??? The thing was gathering information all the time, crank up one of those fancy motorgliders and shoot it down. Old Bob, The Purist

Funny how the White House forgot to mention they took down another
suspicious object on Friday:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/kirby-bury-lead-revealing-shootdown-object-alaskan-arctic

"Oh yeah, I forgot we did splash something today. Now let's talk Turkey!"

On 2/10/23 9:22 AM, Gianni Isotope wrote:
> According to this article, filling the balloon full of bullet holes was unlikely to bring it down:
> https://www.businessinsider.com/runaway-weather-balloon-fighter-jets-history-2023-2
>
>

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 2:09:33 PM UTC-8, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 12:04:08 PM UTC-5, John Sinclair wrote:
> > …
> > On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:22:21 AM UTC-8, Gianni Isotope wrote:
> > > According to this article, filling the balloon full of bullet holes was unlikely to bring it down:
> > > https://www.businessinsider.com/runaway-weather-balloon-fighter-jets-history-2023-2
> > I feel the need to come to the defense of the good old Air Core………….firing thousands of rounds of 20mm over land might not do the trick and all those rounds will land somewhere that might have inhabitants, even in Montana? Firing the Sidewinder that is a heat- seeker with a passive radar mode, might not do the trick, either? No one knew for sure that it would track a balloon…….how much heat is a balloon going to produce at 50,000+ feet? Remember it’s minus 55C up there. If the sidewinder didn’t track the balloon it has been known to go after something else that’s producing more heat, like Joe Cessna or how about an airliner? Talk about a major screwup, that would beat everything? I think they chose the safest option by clearing all traffic in the area and then firing the sidewinder on an easterly heading with the sun behind the F-22………yes the sidewinder has been known to go after the sun!
> >
> > And, to answer another bad-mouthing of the USAF on this net………the Air Force Academy is in the business of producing leaders who obey orders! Standing orders for their sailplane fleet were to land and disassemble all gliders anytime thunderstorms were forecast within 5 miles of the airport! Yes, doing that changed the scoring and adversely effected some competitors………….I believe that standing order has been resented!
> >
> > Wow, good to get that said, I feel much better now,
> > JJ
> Not bad mouthing the Air Force, but the private sector could have accomplished the mission much better with a beam of lase light that could hace burned a hole in the balloon and started a decent that could have been managable and slow. Why wait so long??? The thing was gathering information all the time, crank up one of those fancy motorgliders and shoot it down. Old Bob, The Purist

The military (or maybe it was one of the intel services) said they were jamming the balloon's data reporting, but since it was their jamming, they could still get the data stream to help them determine the capabilities of the balloon. And, the military was shutting down/hiding stuff before the balloon flew over it, so nothing sensitive could be reported. Shooting it down over water surely reduced the damage to it, giving the forensic labs more to work with.

The reason why some things are better to fall on than others is because of how fast the momentum is reduced. Force can also be written as the 'rate of change of momentum', which means force is inversely proportional to the time period it is applied for.

In other words, if your momentum is reduced from a very high number (something you'd expect if you're falling from a plane) to zero INSTANTANEOUSLY, the impact force would be extremely large. But if the momentum is reduced gradually by slowing down your descent bit-by-bit, the time period would be longer and consequently the impact force would be smaller, and that's exactly what makes some things better to fall on.

The fallacy in your comparison between 'land' and 'water' is that land is not a homogenous material. Land consists of trees, snow, stacks of hay et cetera, and all these things would be your best bet to land on if falling from a great height, precisely because of the reason stated above - they slow your descent down bit-by-bit.

Water, on the other hand, is infamous for being incompressible. That means if impact with water from such a large height, instead of giving way, it just halts your descent instantly, resulting in a very large impact force. One general misconception (which you too have fallen for) is that 'land is harder than water'. Even though that may be the case for smaller heights, for larger heights, falling on water basically means destruction because of the reasons stated above.

On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 7:58:02 PM UTC-5, Richard Pfiffner wrote:
> The reason why some things are better to fall on than others is because of how fast the momentum is reduced. Force can also be written as the 'rate of change of momentum', which means force is inversely proportional to the time period it is applied for.
>
> In other words, if your momentum is reduced from a very high number (something you'd expect if you're falling from a plane) to zero INSTANTANEOUSLY, the impact force would be extremely large. But if the momentum is reduced gradually by slowing down your descent bit-by-bit, the time period would be longer and consequently the impact force would be smaller, and that's exactly what makes some things better to fall on.
>
> The fallacy in your comparison between 'land' and 'water' is that land is not a homogenous material. Land consists of trees, snow, stacks of hay et cetera, and all these things would be your best bet to land on if falling from a great height, precisely because of the reason stated above - they slow your descent down bit-by-bit.
>
> Water, on the other hand, is infamous for being incompressible. That means if impact with water from such a large height, instead of giving way, it just halts your descent instantly, resulting in a very large impact force. One general misconception (which you too have fallen for) is that 'land is harder than water'. Even though that may be the case for smaller heights, for larger heights, falling on water basically means destruction because of the reasons stated above.
What bothers me is that Joe, displayed extreme weakness to the entire world just like he does with our borders. My major gripe with these events is that this balloon and others could have been brought down much earlier and differently which would have resulted in a much better recovery. A laser bean of high intensity could have been used to actually burn holes in the balloon or a shooting method of less destructive capability which could have created a better descend and better recovery of the data and equipment. Old Bob, The Purist, AKA, "Mango Bob"

On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 4:58:02 PM UTC-8, Richard Pfiffner wrote:
> The reason why some things are better to fall on than others is because of how fast the momentum is reduced. Force can also be written as the 'rate of change of momentum', which means force is inversely proportional to the time period it is applied for.
>
> In other words, if your momentum is reduced from a very high number (something you'd expect if you're falling from a plane) to zero INSTANTANEOUSLY, the impact force would be extremely large. But if the momentum is reduced gradually by slowing down your descent bit-by-bit, the time period would be longer and consequently the impact force would be smaller, and that's exactly what makes some things better to fall on.
>
> The fallacy in your comparison between 'land' and 'water' is that land is not a homogenous material. Land consists of trees, snow, stacks of hay et cetera, and all these things would be your best bet to land on if falling from a great height, precisely because of the reason stated above - they slow your descent down bit-by-bit.
>
> Water, on the other hand, is infamous for being incompressible. That means if impact with water from such a large height, instead of giving way, it just halts your descent instantly, resulting in a very large impact force. One general misconception (which you too have fallen for) is that 'land is harder than water'. Even though that may be the case for smaller heights, for larger heights, falling on water basically means destruction because of the reasons stated above.

Given the girder type construction of the payload, I see no way water is going to halt the descent as rapidly as, for example, pavement, rock, even packed dirt. It will slice through the water, slowing gradually, as the parts hitting first absorb the shock. I do agree some of the things on land (haystack?) might be better to hit than water.

Looks like Balloon-Gate may not be over yet. Another large balloon has
been spotted NE of Hawaii. Of course, with the way "small SUV's" turn
into party balloons, it may be nothing to worry about. In which case,
it will be blasted out of the sky with $200 million F-22's.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2023/02/20/balloon-sightings-continue-now-near-hawaii-and-over-china/?sh=27e1a7ec1515

On 2/11/23 10:14 AM, kinsell wrote:
> Funny how the White House forgot to mention they took down another
> suspicious object on Friday:
>
> https://www.foxnews.com/media/kirby-bury-lead-revealing-shootdown-object-alaskan-arctic
>
> "Oh yeah, I forgot we did splash something today.  Now let's talk Turkey!"
>
>
>
> On 2/10/23 9:22 AM, Gianni Isotope wrote:
>> According to this article, filling the balloon full of bullet holes
>> was unlikely to bring it down:
>> https://www.businessinsider.com/runaway-weather-balloon-fighter-jets-history-2023-2
>>
>>
>

On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 18:30:15 -0700, kinsell wrote:

> Looks like Balloon-Gate may not be over yet. Another large balloon has
> been spotted NE of Hawaii. Of course, with the way "small SUV's" turn
> into party balloons, it may be nothing to worry about. In which case,
> it will be blasted out of the sky with $200 million F-22's.
>
As for the small balloons, read this: at leas one of them could be related
to the Northern Illinois Bottlecap Balloon Brigade - a group of high-
altitude balloon hobbyests. This article tells the story:

https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/20/balloon/?td=rt-3a

I've known about these since around 2010, when hobbyists started putting
up helium balloons of about 6 feet/2m in diameter with nothing more in the
way of payload than a radio beacon, and possibly a camera, on board: they
simply wanted to know who could make the longest flight with one, see
where the stratospheric winds would take it, and maybe get some nice high
altitude photos.

If the military don't know this, it just shows they haven't been paying
attention.

--

Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org