But it could have been inflated by aliens, right? 
And of course after recent news, there are going to be many other sightings reported, regardless of whether China or anyone else is actually doing anything. Some will be the same old phenomena that are always causing “UFO sightings”, except taken more seriously now, and some will be folks just completely making things up because they want attention.
And maybe some of them will, in fact, be more genuine Chinese balloons, doing more of whatever-the-heck the first one was doing. But wait for the evidence.
I can see some trollish folks launching hordes of those solar balloons just to watch NORAD freak out. And to provide never-ending fodder for propaganda assertions that the administration is not adequately defending the air border.
They’re easily sorted out with a cheap telescope. It’s not hard to tell the difference between a large balloon with a payload and a child’s toy.
The recent Pentagon UFO report seems to indicate otherwise. Navy pilots and other military personnel have reported hundreds of unidentified aerial phenomena, a significant fraction of which have subsequently been identified as balloons of various kinds, including toy balloons.
More on yesterday’s U.F.O. incident over Alaska:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/11/politics/unidentified-object-alaska-military-latest/index.html
You’re confusing UFO’s with easily identifiable slow moving balloons which are easy to sort out.
Many of the objects seen by the Navy Pilots were slow moving balloons, but it took careful analysis to determine that they were mundane.
And for those who dismiss balloons with large payloads consider the one one that started this thread. It was capable of carrying 3 thermonuclear bombs with a blast yield of 3 to 4 times that of the Hiroshima bomb.
That balloon maneuvered over a nuclear missile site.
But once such a black bag of air reached high altitude, such as 40,000 feet, wouldn’t it be cold enough that it would start sinking? Or does it only need to be a slight bit warmer than the surrounding air?
cite they were over US land where they could be observed with telescopes. You’re confusing an unknown object with something that can pose a threat.
Just needs to be warmer than the surrounding air, not warm in absolute terms.
Well, you can’t shake a stick in MT without being over a nuke silo… And who knows if it’s actually occupied? And with the Boomers out there, it really doesn’t matter a wet fart.
So that thing pictured in eburacum45’s post #579 upthread … it’s totally feasible (and unremarkable?) for that kind of balloon to be found at 40,000 feet? Or higher?
The object shot down over NE Alaska yesterday was said to have shattered on impact (can find cite if necessary). Would the kind of balloon in post #579 … would that thin plastic get brittle enough at 40k feet (due to cold?) to act more or less like an eggshell and break into solid-looking pieces (as opposed to paper-like or film-like fluttering pieces)?
Today’s Canadian UFO was first detected yesterday over Alaska, where yesterday’s UFO was shot down. After “tracking it closely” for two days and “taking time to characterize the nature of the object”, they still don’t know what it is.
I would believe it would radiate heat and become the same temperature as the surrounding air. Of course, the question is, how long would that take, which is related to the volume of the balloon?
Q= UA(delta T) and I do not know the value of U for mylar.
If it were just it and the surrounding air, then yes, it’d radiate heat until it’s the same temperature. But that’s not all there is: It’s also gaining radiant heat from the Sun, while the air around it, being almost perfectly transparent, isn’t. Solar balloons will work even better at high altitude.
Another UFO over Montana:
I wonder if removing the Breaking News tag on this thread was a initiated a bit early?