Hacker News Reader

Comment by CyberDildonics | Hacker News Reader

Why would you need an experimental drone to do that when you can use satellite photos?

You want to test your ability to get physical payloads in place, e.g. in the future the drone could carry a bomb or something else clever (listening devices? Dropping gallium on aluminum airplanes? Etc)

You want low angle shots?

You're not well funded enough to get good satellite photos?

> Dropping gallium on aluminum airplanes?

Is there anything that building a delivery mechanism to carry and then drop gallium onto a plane does that an actual gun wouldn't?

Befuddle the public with scary sounding words?

Hypothetically it might act as a more subtle form of sabotage, the goal being to bring down a plane in the air. It might also be harder to cleanup/patch than a bullet hole if detected. I don't think it's a serious threat though and is really acting as a stand in for "fancy forms of sabotage".

It doesn‘t need a clear vantage point with straight-line access to the target.

Less visible bullet hole more structurally compromised Al.

It's stealthier and quieter.

All three of your points make sense, but for me the last point really resonates.

No need for a space program, or going through someone that does.

Just acquire drone > use drone.

Satellites are tracked and interesting activities are scheduled to happen when the satellite is not overhead.

Also, a drone could have radio receivers to collect short range comms.

Don't satellites only occupy a given area once or twice a day (if not geosynchronous)? If you know the pattern you can hide assets before it gets in view. A drone can do surveillance at any time.

US spy satellites have a maximum resolution of 5-10 cm. A drone close to the ground can do better.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2019/09/01/t...]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com