Ask HN: Why are spy satellites more acceptable than high altitude spy balloons? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Why are spy satellites more acceptable than high altitude spy balloons?

13 pointsamichail23 comments

Anyone know?

https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/int...:

“outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#List_of_par... shows it was ratified by 112 countries, including the USA and China.

So, countries may not like being spied upon from space, but that “and use”, to me, means they signed up for allowing it.

I think that article IV of https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/out... makes that clear. It doesn’t ban military use of space; it only bans placing weapons of mass destruction there, thus allowing surveillance.

Spy satellites aren't invading sovereign airspace, but high altitude balloons are. There is a global agreement that nobody owns territory in space or on other planets than Earth.

They have occasionally mentioned that 40,000 feet is close enough to pick up communications signals that would otherwise not be available to satellites.

Sovereign airspace seems to me should be a bit like 12 mile limit for oceans or 200 mile economic zones for oceans. So how far up? 12 miles? If it is a segment the shape of the continent + 12 mile ocean limit, does it reach out into space? Once the air becomes thin (and cold) enough to not support life is that the limit? Apparently you can have balloons in the stratosphere, is that sovereign airspace? These signals a balloon can pick up it they are important surely they will be encrypted. I seem to remember in the sixties or seventies there was a picture of a Russian reading a newspaper in red square and you could read the newsprint. If satellite technology hasn't improved in the 50 years since, I would suggest that neither has balloon spying. How many mega pixels is your phone?

It's the ability to pretty much hover for a while that makes it different. Considering how fast recon satellites fly past overhead (literally a single blink to cross your entire field of view), according to those green laser videos that have been showing up lately), they can capture a lot more targeted info with a balloon, and quite cheaply for that matter.

Disclaimer: I don't care about either.

Spy satellites, spy balloons, spy network appliances, spy phones, and plain spies are all proxies for "the enemy", that can be invoked at will, whenever we must be reminded that there are potential enemies and that they are "that close" to becoming an actual threat. Today it is balloons, tomorrow it will be something else. The easier it is to actually see that proxy, the easier it is to transmit the message.

And balloons happen to be more visible than satellites.

Most countries don’t have the capability to shoot down a spy satellite.

Spy satellites couldn’t be hiding a bomb that they could drop.

People have generally agreed that sovereign territorial rights don’t extend into outer space. It would be ridiculous for stars and planets to become e.g. German territory one minute and French territory half an hour later.

> Spy satellites couldn’t be hiding a bomb that they could drop.

Although never developed past the conceptual stage, orbital kinetic bombardment is a viable weapon:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

It relies on launching significant mass to orbit though (whether that is split into larger "strategic" weapons or many smaller "tactical" ones), so it hasn't been attractive from an ROI standpoint.

Interestingly, SpaceX's focus on greater payloads at lower cost may alter the feasibility of such weapons.

> Spy satellites couldn’t be hiding a bomb that they could drop.

I have no doubt that several global powers have armed satellites in orbit ready to strike at any moment. And probably since before most of us were born. Are we really to believe all that investment into space flight and no weapons just because we're told that?

It's physics.

It's cheaper to have even ridiculously expensive B2 bombers than spending even more money to put bombs into space.

I think it's plausible that they have satellites that can damage other satellites though.

> Spy satellites couldn’t be hiding a bomb that they could drop.

Someone hasn't played Call of Duty https://callofduty.fandom.com/wiki/ODIN_Space_Station

I would say it's physical presence in a nation's territory.

Given altitude is unlimited, territory has to end somewhere and that seems to be space, from the cold war period.

Also there are agreements not to weaponise space which reduces threat levels. Also when this became the norm sattelites were far less capable which may have help this become acceptable, though not confident on that.

Also consider nations grabbing comms is considered reasonable. They protest occasionally but largely this is considered fair game as you are again not physically present, where as spy caught in a building type event is a big deal.

There needs to be some boundaries. Physical presence in 'territory' seems to be it.

It could be a functional requirement for humanity to participate in space. Without the ability to orbit over other countries, nobody can have any type of satellite. Once you've established it's OK to orbit satellites over other countries, the gradient between a weather or communication satellite and a spy satellite might be small enough all relevant stakeholders have agreed to treat them under the same rules. Finally, enforcing 'no spy satellites' using force could invoke Kessler syndrome, so any country with the ability to enforce the 'no spy sats' rule is probably most impacted by the consequences.

> Without the ability to orbit over other countries, nobody can have any type of satellite.

Wouldn't a geosynchronous or geostationary satellite orbit over one "point" typically? Getting it to orbit might be a different question though.

The US was set to launch the first satellite. This was the cold war, and the US government was worried that the USSR would take an overflight as a provocation.

The USSR was getting close to launching Sputnik, so the US government decided to let the USSR launch first.

That set the precedent that it was OK for overflight as long as it was in space. When the US launched, the USSR could not use it as an excuse.

https://www.inventionandtech.com/content/how-america-chose-n...

This seems like a piece of propaganda trying to ret'con the past. The failed launch of Vanguard TV-3 & the subsequent inter-agency competition around the Juno program disagrees with the idea that the US simply "decided" to let the USSR launch first.

Thank you for sharing this - I was unaware of this part of the history.

Keep in mind that unless a satellite is in geostationary orbit (~35,000 km above sea level) it is not fixed in place. ISS orbits the earth once every ~90 minutes / ~17 times a day.

Spy balloons, due to their much lower altitude, can take higher resolution photos & more accurate 3D scans of facilities as well as pick up short range radio transmissions (both intentional & unintentional) not possible from a spy satellite.

I'm no expert but let's say you wanted detailed intel on a oil refinery, manufacturing plant or military facility. With a sensitive enough antenna a balloon fly-by might be able to pick up WiFi signals, keyfob codes, security radio crosstalk, even wireless keyboard emissions.

Also, remember, China has extremely sophisticated facial recognition it uses to track its citizens. A fly-over of a facility at a shift-change could give them a lot of people to target for human-engineering attacks at the site's security.

Space begins at an elevation of 330,000 feet. For some reason, anything above this has been classified again, for some reason, as “outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;”. Below this, is when airspace laws and treaties begin to apply. Over US airspace, there are laws in place to allow commercial planes, and such from other countries to fly over. But for things like spy balloons, not so. It is considered invading sovereign airspace, and a violation of international law.

It's a lot harder to get rid of a spy satellite than a spy balloon. Also, according to the Outer Space Treaty[0], "outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States". A spy balloon is invading your airspace, a spy satellite is not.

[0]: https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/int...

Does a spy satellite risk bringing down a passenger aircraft with hundreds of people if they collide over the Great Lakes?

I don’t usually do this but you could have answered your own question with like, a minute of thinking for yourself.

The Soviet Union was willing to sign nuclear arms treaties if verification was left to "National Means". That is no ground-level verification but satellite verification was acceptable. I'm pretty sure that set the standard.

The spy balloon was tons of material 10 miles above the heads of civilians that could fall at any moment and kill people.

A spy satellite is in orbit, and would likely burn up before hitting the ground.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com