Seems an appropriate time to mention a very different Cold War intelligence heist, when a KGB agent skipped the trailer entirely and simply smashed an AIM-9 through the back window of his Mercedes, marked it with a red flag as required by law for the drive home, and slowly mailed it in pieces to Moscow.
There is a long history of controlling diets before missions, and providing very specific foods for these missions to not upset the stomach. See an MRE from the U-2:
I used to do an annual 12km run (I hate running, hence the distance not being particularly noteworthy, except if one hates running), and so paranoid was I about needing to take a dump on the way, during, or on the way back, I'd sort out my, uhhh, schedule for the week prior, to ensure that it was all taken care of early in the morning before the run.
I'm also aware that the human body is generally smart enough to "clam up" during physical activity, so it was probably redundant effort, but it was somewhat of an enjoyably weird thing to try and control / predict / schedule.
Additionally, I have _that_ reaction to drinking coffee, so bringing it on in the event of a potential timing issue was relatively simple.
I think we're talking about the X-37, which is a secretive unmanned shuttle.
There is a lot of speculation about the possible uses and missions for the X-37. Amateur astronomers enjoy trying to locate it, but it keeps manoeuvring!
yes that was it, now I feel several sorts of awkward as I specifically looked it up because I could not remember the designation and yet, still somewhere between the list of x-planes and the comment entry the X-37(reusable baby space shuttle thing) became the X-47(stealth unmanned aircraft). Thanks for the catch.
> Why is there so much secrecy surrounding it? Is it not a publicly funded project?
It's a military project so it's not surprising theres a lot of secrecy around it. Even more so that it's likely related to some sort of intelligence or combat missions.
The entire original design for the Space Transportation System was fatally compromised by the requirement it be able to do that mission, setting back human spaceflight 40 years, and then it never did it.
Let's pick up an entire sunken submarine with a claw from the surface by attaching to the center of the boat instead of something applying more even pressure. It's like there was nobody in the room that had ever played the claw vending machine game and saw the futility of it. "The smartest guys in the room" seems apropos
>It's like there was nobody in the room that had ever played the claw vending machine game and saw the futility of it
The claw games are deliberately designed to hit a certain payout ratio (e.g. only 1:15 or so, configurable by the operator, attempts will have the claw clamp tightly enough to retrieve a prize).
I would assume the CIA did not include this feature on their claw.
or did they?? they were able to bring the boat up off the floor tantalizingly to make them thing they were going to raise it at some ridiculous rate of ascent only for the boat to split. they too got fooled by the claw. their parents were out of quarters, so they couldn't try again
The machines can force a loss, but they can't force a win. If you're unlucky you're unlucky and the machine will make it up by not forcing losses later with someone with more luck and skill. Statistics give enough opportunity to not need to rig every game, and they only need to achieve a ratio over a long run, usually millions of plays ('we' always ran to 3 million plays as our statistical target, but that was fruit machines, aka slots).
I understand many (most?) claw machines these days have sensors in the prize chute and will go into a "strong claw" mode until such time as a prize is successfully dropped. So not quite forcing a win, but certainly making it more fair.
This is like a project manager that agrees to ship code that is known to be buggy and doesn't actually do what was intended, but performs just enough to fool a casual user. No. No. NO. Please, update your definition of working
Why do people always talk about CIA as if it existed in a vacuum? The KGB were at least as ruthless and I can't imagine how badly everything would've gone without the CIA or other intelligence services on our side. Even now we have enemies which justify the continued existence of these agencies.
You’re confusing the CIA with an intelligence agency. It is not now nor has ever been an intelligence agency. There are various other departments that do intelligence. The CIA was founded with the mission of letting the Dulles brothers conduct secret wars, and it remains true to that vision even now. There’s no excuse for it.
Reminds me of this wiki article I randomly came across last week about the former chief of the KGB predecessor… there is zero equivalent of this in the US https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria
I am more interested if the cloak and dagger yielded any actionable intelligence. The article notes that there was a successful launch weeks after the caper, but that seems far too quick for any kind of learnings to have been implemented.
Also curious of any notable historical decoy/honeypot ploys. Fake technology developments intended to be captured so as to waste enemy resources.
Very cool, kind of "For All Mankind" vibes going on there. But I'd be kind of more interested in understanding why the Soviets were able to get so far ahead of the US and then how the US managed to suddenly catch up and leapfrog them.
The article is ambiguous on what object was actually 'kidnapped'. Other sources indicate it was an upper stage, presumably a flight-spec but unflown example.
It certainly wasn't a 'satellite' or an actual Luna probe.
It must have been an upper stage yes plus the spacecraft it carried, the dimensions mentioned by the article were way too small to be the whole stack with a booster.
