News Chinese spy balloons ‘used a U.S. internet provider’ – as well as American hardware

[Tanakoi]

No it wasn't.

Yes, the balloon did spend the majority of its time over military bases: your track doesn't take into account its manuevering:

NBC NEWS: "China was able to control the balloon so it could make multiple passes over some of the sites (at times flying figure-eight formations) and transmit the information it collected back to Beijing in real time...."

If you prefer it's phrased as the balloon spent the majority of its intelligence-gathering time over military bases, I won't quibble.

 

[USAFRet]

Yes, the balloon did spend the majority of its time over military bases: your track doesn't take into account its manuevering:

NBC NEWS: "China was able to control the balloon so it could make multiple passes over some of the sites (at times flying figure-eight formations) and transmit the information it collected back to Beijing in real time...."

"Most of its time was spent over military bases in remote areas of Alaska and Montana"

And then it teleported from Montana to South Carolina, ignoring everything in between.

There are a LOT of military bases between Montana and coastal South Carolina.


Whatever.

The thrust of this article was that a US ISP was used to transmit the data.

NOT that some surreptitious ground stations were laid out, and then the data illegally backboned into normal ISP traffic.

More likely, it was as simple as calling a Verizon account rep and:
"Hey, we're going to put a weather balloon in a couple of months. We'll need some connectivity from it to the University of Somewhere. What can you do for us?"

'Well, here ya go...blah blah blah.'

Now...what it was actually transmitting may have been totally different than was was originally said.

 

[edzieba]

A good antenna for increased signal range (helps that you don't need omnidirectional, just pointed down) and an international roaming SIM or a bank of swappable SIMs (roaming probably cheaper and simpler unless you want to stream 4K video or something silly). Et Voila, your balloon will be able to downlink over GSM over pretty much any inhabited landmass, and with decent enough bandwidth to cache between darkspots and burst when in range. Much more bandwidth than LoRa, cheaper than SATCOM.
Why build and operate a worldwide array of telemetry stations, when someone has already installed and operates several tens to hundreds of millions of them spread across the globe, all helpfully running the same standard protocol (GSM)? Particularly when the data is not time-sensitive and can de dumped when in range rather than streamed live.

 

[Tanakoi]

Et Voila, your balloon will be able to downlink over GSM over pretty much any inhabited landmass

Before this news report, that was my first guess. Still, if true, I'm mildly surprised the report would use the term "ISP", rather than the more specific "cell provider". Maybe they're just cagey by nature.

And then it teleported from Montana to South Carolina, ignoring everything in between.

I don't believe anyone's suggesting Star Trek technology. The fact remains that your map track doesn't account for loiter time. I once spent six months traveling from Paris to Shanghai: my meandering trail looks remarkably similar, but it was 10 days of rail and air travel, with the rest in five cities. The balloon's journey wasn't quite so extreme, but it certainly wasn't drifting randomly either. It loitered over one base, then moved to the next.

NOT that some surreptitious ground stations were laid out, and then the data illegally backboned...

I'm not sure what in my post would make anyone think I was implying surreptitious ground stations. The thread's been a response to an allegation this was done via Xfinity's existing public wifi network, a claim I personally find unlikely, though technically not infeasible.

 

[USAFRet]

I don't believe anyone's suggesting Star Trek technology. The fact remains that your map track doesn't account for loiter time. I once spent six months traveling from Paris to Shanghai: my meandering trail looks remarkably similar, but it was 10 days of rail and air travel, with the rest in five cities.

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

Here is a list of major US military installations along that path (disregarding what is in Montana):

1. Offutt AFB - StratCom HQ
2. Whiteman AFB - 509th Bomb Wing, home of all the B-2s
3. Ft. Campbell - 101st Airborne Div, 160SOAR
4. Oak Ridge - Everything Nuclear
5. Shaw AFB - 20FW F-16
6. Ft. Liberty - 82D Airborne Div

In reality, though...you could draw a meandering line anywhere in the US, and have it go near or over multiple major military installations.

I'm not sure what in my post would make anyone think I was implying surreptitious ground stations. The thread's been a response to an allegation this was done via Xfinity's existing public wifi network, a claim I personally find unlikely, though technically not infeasible.

Nothing in the article mentions the existing public wifi network. Just that it was done via some unmentioned tech, via an unnamed US service provider.

 

[Tanakoi]

In reality, though...you could draw a meandering line anywhere in the US, and have it go near or over multiple major military installations.

The balloon didn't go "near" our military bases, it went directly over several of them, then loitered, performing multiple figure-eight passes overhead. And the choice of military bases wasn't random either, it chose Malmstrom AFB, where we house Minuteman nuclear ICBMs, then Offut AFB, home of Strategic Air Command, then Whiteman AFB, home of our nuclear-capable B2 Bomber, and Joint Base Charleston, home of the Naval Information Warfare Center and our busiest port for defense transport. Why attempt to imply it was drifting randomly?

Nothing in the article mentions the existing public wifi network. Just that it was done via some unmentioned tech, via an unnamed US service provider.

You first claimed I presumed a "surreptitious ground station", now you're implying I'm claiming the article specified a public wifi network? You're setting up strawmen to knock them down. I don't know how I could be more possibly clear than what I already wrote: I find the OP's (not the article's) claim that the Chinese used the public Wi-Fi network to be unlikely, but not technically infeasible.

 

[USAFRet]

I said nothing about "randomly". Perhaps meandering was mistaken for random. Not how I meant it.

And I specifically pointed out several, but not ALL, of the major military installations along that path.

That thing was under guidance and steering. Path not chosen at random.


Seriously unsure where our disagreement here is.

 

[USAFRet]

I don't know how I could be more possibly clear than what I already wrote: I find the OP's (not the article's) claim that the Chinese used the public Wi-Fi network to be unlikely, but not technically infeasible.

The only person claiming Xfinity and their public WiFi was in post #3.
https://forums.tomshardware.com/thr...l-as-american-hardware.3832446/#post-23171246

Absolute junk and easily debunked.

 

[edzieba]

Unless someone thinks China can control, US weather, any stratospheric balloon (spy or weather) is at the whims of stratospheric winds as to where it travels and when. At best if there is a significant wind shear then raising or lowering altitude offers some modicum of choice between two (themselves unchosen) directions, but you are not going to be actively steering under command, let alone 'flying figure eights'. Even Project Loon's LTA-HAPS could only manage to stationkeep in perfect conditions - when there were two directly opposing winds available immediately above/below each other. All other conditions would result in uncontrollable drift. And that was over the Pacific with nice homogenous surface conditions, where there was no untidy landscape sitting around and messing with atmospheric flow!

 

[USAFRet]

Unless someone thinks China can control, US weather, any stratospheric balloon (spy or weather) is at the whims of stratospheric winds as to where it travels and when. At best if there is a significant wind shear then raising or lowering altitude offers some modicum of choice between two (themselves unchosen) directions, but you are not going to be actively steering under command, let alone 'flying figure eights'. Even Project Loon's LTA-HAPS could only manage to stationkeep in perfect conditions - when there were two directly opposing winds available immediately above/below each other. All other conditions would result in uncontrollable drift. And that was over the Pacific with nice homogenous surface conditions, where there was no untidy landscape sitting around and messing with atmospheric flow!

Seeing as Airbus has a few solar powered aircraft, weighing between 40 and 60kg, capable of flying at altitudes up to 75,000ft...with enough precision to spell out words in the flight path,...I see little reason this balloon thing could not have been steered as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Zephyr

July 7 2022

 

[Tanakoi]

Unless someone thinks China can control, US weather, any stratospheric balloon (spy or weather) is at the whims of stratospheric winds as to where it travels and when. ... you are not going to be actively steering under command, let alone 'flying figure eights'.

To add to USAFRet's debunking of this, I'd like to point out that a SAC official stated the 'balloon' was more properly an airship. It had two propellers, and adequate maneuvering capability.

The only person claiming Xfinity and their public WiFi was in post #3.

Yes, and one person instantly (and incorrectly) claimed it was technically impossible ... and from that point on, most of the posts were in response to that.

 

[edzieba]

Seeing as Airbus has a few solar powered aircraft, weighing between 40 and 60kg, capable of flying at altitudes up to 75,000ft...with enough precision to spell out words in the flight path,...I see little reason this balloon thing could not have been steered as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Zephyr

July 7 2022

An aircraft is not a stratospheric balloon. One flies by aerodynamic lift, one flies by bouyancy.

I can't believe explaining the difference between an aircraft and a balloon is actually necessary. I mean, we have photographs of the danged thing! This is not a zeppelin, it's not going to be fighting stratospheric winds.

 

[USAFRet]

Yes, I know what the thing looked like.

You can think what you want, but apparently it was steerable.

And if you looked at pics of the Airbus Zephyr, you wouldn't think it capable of "fighting stratospheric winds" either.
It is light and fragile enough to be hand launched by 4 or 5 people.

 

[Tanakoi]

I mean, we have photographs of the danged thing! This is not a zeppelin, it's not going to be fighting stratospheric winds.

On one side we have the facts as to what the craft actually did; on the other we have wishful thinking as to what you believe it couldn't do.

NBC News: "China was able to control the balloon so it could make multiple passes over some of the sites (at times flying figure-eight formations) and transmit the information it collected back to Beijing in real time, the three [US intelligence] officials said...."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/na...cted-intelligence-us-military-bases-rcna77155

Interview with Air Forces Commander General Kenneth Wilsbach: "“We say balloon because it looks like a balloon — but in actuality, that vehicle was an airship. So it had a vessel that looked much like a balloon. But underneath it was a, I call it a ‘gondola,’ but it was a structure that hung from the balloon that had some sensors on it, but also had some props, and so that’s how it maneuvered..."

 

[edzieba]

On one side we have the facts as to what the craft actually did; on the other we have wishful thinking as to what you believe it couldn't do.

NBC News: "China was able to control the balloon so it could make multiple passes over some of the sites (at times flying figure-eight formations) and transmit the information it collected back to Beijing in real time, the three [US intelligence] officials said...."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/na...cted-intelligence-us-military-bases-rcna77155

Interview with Air Forces Commander General Kenneth Wilsbach: "“We say balloon because it looks like a balloon — but in actuality, that vehicle was an airship. So it had a vessel that looked much like a balloon. But underneath it was a, I call it a ‘gondola,’ but it was a structure that hung from the balloon that had some sensors on it, but also had some props, and so that’s how it maneuvered..."

We have claims of what it did, that both contradict official statements (the claims are not from press conferences or press releases, but made off the record), and would be easily provable with evidence (RADAR tracks of the balloon in flight) but lack that supporting evidence.
On the other hand, we have open knowledge on the technical capabilities of dirigible superpressure balloons operating in the stratosphere from papers released from Google's Project Loon.

 

[Tanakoi]

We have claims of what it did, that both contradict official statements

Not sure why you're beating this dead horse, but it doesn't contradict official statements:

"...on Friday, the Pentagon press secretary, Air Force Brigadier General Patrick Ryder, held a press briefing where he stated, “ 'We know that it’s a surveillance balloon.... We know that it has the ability to maneuver.' "

Furthermore, the earlier statement I posted from General Wilsbach was not "off the record", but from an official interview.

On the other hand, we have open knowledge on the technical capabilities of dirigible superpressure balloons operating in the stratosphere from papers released from Google's Project Loon.

LOL, Project Loon's balloons were tiny in comparison: their payload was limited to a 10 kg box. This airship carried a gondola the size of two city buses -- and had powered propellers, whereas Loon did not. And **still** Loon had more maneuvering capability than you give it credit for:

"The company stated that the particular altitude and layer of the stratosphere is advantageous for the balloons because of its low wind speed [and] low turbulence ... [Loon] could control the latitudinal and longitudinal position of its high-altitude balloons by changing their altitude..."

You're mistakenly believing "the stratosphere" is a homogenous region dominated by a high-speed, powerful jet stream. This is not the case. It's composed of multiple layers, some of which wind speeds average 10-20 mph -- and at that altitude, a 20mph wind is equivalent to just a barely perceptible breeze on the ground.
.

 

[USAFRet]

We have claims of what it did, that both contradict official statements (the claims are not from press conferences or press releases, but made off the record), and would be easily provable with evidence (RADAR tracks of the balloon in flight) but lack that supporting evidence.
On the other hand, we have open knowledge on the technical capabilities of dirigible superpressure balloons operating in the stratosphere from papers released from Google's Project Loon.

Well, I highly doubt they're going to release the radar track any time soon.
Classified info and all that.

 

[edzieba]

Not sure why you're beating this dead horse, but it doesn't contradict official statements:

"...on Friday, the Pentagon press secretary, Air Force Brigadier General Patrick Ryder, held a press briefing where he stated, “ 'We know that it’s a surveillance balloon.... We know that it has the ability to maneuver.' "

Which does not means it can 'fly figure eights', as the most common manoeuvre capability for superpressure balloons is active bourancy control. You can move the vehicle up and down to choose which wind layer to be blown around by, but you don't get to choose the winds you have available to select from.

LOL, Project Loon's balloons were tiny in comparison: their payload was limited to a 10 kg box. This airship carried a gondola the size of two city buses -- and had powered propellers, whereas Loon did not. And **still** Loon had more maneuvering capability than you give it credit for:

"The company stated that the particular altitude and layer of the stratosphere is advantageous for the balloons because of its low wind speed [and] low turbulence ... [Loon] could control the latitudinal and longitudinal position of its high-altitude balloons by changing their altitude..."

You're mistakenly believing "the stratosphere" is a homogenous region dominated by a high-speed, powerful jet stream. This is not the case. It's composed of multiple layers, some of which wind speeds average 10-20 mph -- and at that altitude, a 20mph wind is equivalent to just a barely perceptible breeze on the ground.

By the end of the programme, Loon's payloads were in the 50+ kg range. And whilst "the size of two city buses" is a comically American hyperbolic-but-useless measurement, it does not tell you anything about the payload mass.
You're also missing two important things: Loon could vary altitude to select winds but could not choose which winds were available (i.e. if you have a 70m/s wind blowing due west and a 5m/s wind blowing due west, you cannot travel east regardless of altitude), and they achieved that stationkeeping performance over ocean, not over land, where you do not have geographic features affecting winds.

And going once again back to the photo of the actual vehicle, notice how the gondola is suspended from a single tether and there is no hardware on the envelope itself? That means any propulsion within the gondola will cause the gondola to spin and sway more than it will provide any useful propulsive force laterally. To do that requires a more rigid connection than a single tether (at the very least a three-tether setup allows for combinations of lateral and rotating thrust within CoM limits). It's easy to forget that whilst the gondola 'weighs' less than the balloon due to buoyancy, the balloon (combined envelope and enclosed gas) outmass the gondola.

 

[bit_user]

Not sure why you're beating this dead horse,

Pot, meet kettle.

Seriously, guys, the profile of balloon is obviously too big for whatever solar-powered propellers in the platform to counteract any high-speed wind currents.

​

That doesn't mean the statements of it maneuvering were outright lies, but maybe slight exaggerations. Or, it just got lucky with the wind currents and managed to linger over some areas a bit longer.

Whatever the case, I don't think anyone is debating whether it had maneuverability. That doesn't necessarily mean it was being actively controlled, however. It still could've been trying to follow a preprogrammed flight plan.

I'm not even sure why we're debating this, other than for the sake of debating.

 

[USAFRet]

You do realize that 60k feet and above is well above the general jet stream, right?
Above 55-60k feet, the winds are NOT high.

Regarding weather balloons:

Watching Weather Balloons on Ham Radio

UC Berkeley’s Amateur Radio Club (archive) and the East Bay Amateur Radio Club (archive) in California launched a balloon with a tracking device Saturday, which allowed radio amateurs to see …

ingalls.weathertogether.net

"Above the jet stream, winds are significantly weaker. At 60,000 feet above the Bay Area, they were barely reaching 20 mph. Going even higher up to near 100,000 feet gets you even slower winds."


https://www.weather.gov/source/zhu/ZHU_Training_Page/winds/Wx_Terms/Flight_Environment.htm
"Winds in the central core of the jet stream are the strongest and may reach speeds as great as 250 knots, although they are generally between 100 and 150 knots. Wind speeds decrease toward the outer edges of the jet stream and may be blowing at only 25 knots there. The rate of decrease of wind speed is considerably greater on the northern edge than on the southern edge. Wind speeds in the jet stream are, on average, considerably stronger in winter than in summer."


Average wind speed over Black Rock Nevada:
https://cdn.imagearchive.com/rocket...ALTITUDE-WIND-and-TEMP-DATA-at-Black-Rock.pdf
figure 3: Average Wind Speed.

Between 55,000 and 75,000 feet, wind speed is below 30ft/s (20mph)

 

[edzieba]

And? A single-tether gondola under a superpressure balloon is not going to be making 20mph relative airspeed no matter how many propellers you slap onto it, let alone making progress into the wind.

 

[Tanakoi]

Pot, meet kettle.

Seriously, guys, the profile of balloon is obviously too big for whatever solar-powered propellers in the platform to counteract any high-speed wind currents.

There are no "high speed wind currents" where the airship was. And we have the statements of four different defense officials -- five if you count the somewhat ambiguous official statement that the airship could "maneuver" -- as well as eyewitness accounts of the balloon loitering for extended periods above military bases. Furthermore, it's a major logic fail to claim the propellers are ineffective, when the Chinese chose to put them on the craft. Do you seriously believe they mounted props just for looks? Or that they never tested this beforehand?

Whatever the case, I don't think anyone is debating whether it had maneuverability.

Except, you mean, for the person to whom I replied. My "beating a dead horse" statement referred to his absolute refusal to believe this airship was maneuverable.

It still could've been trying to follow a preprogrammed flight plan.

Not sure why you consider this relevant. What does it matter whether it was "preprogrammed" to loiter over US military bases or guided there in real time?

 

[Tanakoi]

going once again back to the photo of the actual vehicle, notice how the gondola is suspended from a single tether

Time for new glasses. I'm looking at a photo of it right now: it's clearly suspended at four separate points.

 

[bit_user]

we have the statements of four different defense officials -- five if you count the somewhat ambiguous official statement that the airship could "maneuver"

Please read the whole post, before responding. It wasn't a long post.

it's a major logic fail to claim the propellers are ineffective, when the Chinese chose to put them on the craft. Do you seriously believe they mounted props just for looks? Or that they never tested this beforehand?

Nobody is saying they're ineffective. The only question is whether they can overcome the pressure of wind on such a large surface area, in order to fly into a headwind. Even at modest wind speeds, it seems like a lot to ask of the propellers and their power source.

Not sure why you consider this relevant. What does it matter whether it was "preprogrammed" to loiter over US military bases or guided there in real time?

It's germane to the question of communication.

 

[Tanakoi]

Nobody is saying they're ineffective. The only question is whether they can overcome the pressure of wind on such a large surface area....

You forgot that air pressure 20 km up is about 1/15 that at ground level -- just under 1 psi. What would be a forceful 30 mph breeze at ground level would be barely perceptible there.

And you're ignoring that your theory conflicts with reality. A defense official has stated the balloon "flew figure-eight passes" over several bases. Even if we assume this is some conspiracy by the US government, there are dozens of eyewitness accounts of the balloon lingering over these areas for several hours. A 30mph wind will move a balloon 150 miles in 5 hours time .... unless it's capable of overcoming wind pressure.

"Control" is germane to the question of communication.

How so? You yourself dedicated several posts to noting that if the balloon could transmit to a US-based ISP, that implied it could receive as well. We know this already. So what "question of communication" is resolved by hypothesizing the balloon may have been pre-programmed?