Recent comments in /f/space

fighterace00 t1_j90ceq8 wrote

Reply to comment by HolyGig in Where does space really begin? Chinese spy balloon highlights legal fuzziness of ‘near space’ by HarpuasGhost

So your argument is national boundaries should be completely dependent on surveillance methods.

Why not make overflights valid in that case? Orbital or not has no bearing on surveillance ability. Why did it be different monitoring at 50 feet or 60,000 feet or 400,000 feet?

Because of the ability to shoot it down? Russians couldn't touch our U2's for 5 years and could probably fly over Cuba to this day. We've shot a missile from an F15. The only thing stopping satellites from shooting each other is a weak treaty and the definition of space. Maybe that's the crux of the issue then, the definition of space where we can uphold a treaty, not what distances are technically unlikely to be used force against. Once we start shooting satellites down the new definition of political space would be Lagrange points and solar orbits.

The point isn't to define boundaries based on current tech but to draw a line in the sand internationally where we will no longer engage in violence. China and Russia have already made it clear multiple times they have little respect for "international" agreements.

1

HolyGig t1_j904pxw wrote

Reply to comment by fighterace00 in Where does space really begin? Chinese spy balloon highlights legal fuzziness of ‘near space’ by HarpuasGhost

Because I don't care about the Karman line I am defining orbit as the key delineation between reasonable surveillance methods and methods which will likely result in force being a response.

Yes, you can technically have a suborbital method that is valid, but its gonna look exactly like a ballistic missile and its trajectory will be beyond lower LEO altitudes so what's the point? Just use an actual satellite at that point lol

1

fighterace00 t1_j9032pv wrote

Reply to comment by HolyGig in Where does space really begin? Chinese spy balloon highlights legal fuzziness of ‘near space’ by HarpuasGhost

Title:

> Where does space really begin? Chinese spy balloon highlights legal fuzziness of 'near space'

You:

> Its not fuzzy at all. You are either in orbit, or you are not.

Also you:

> When were we trying to define space? We are talking about valid surveillance tactics.

Tell me again how you can be suborbital beyond the karman line and it be fuzzy if you're legally in space because the megapixels of the camera in the tourists hands is low.

2

peter303_ t1_j8zxoea wrote

Reply to Where does space really begin? Chinese spy balloon highlights legal fuzziness of ‘near space’ by HarpuasGhost

For those who remember the 1950s, the launch of Sputnik was somewhat terrifying because there was this object from the Enemy going over our heads every 90 minutes and we couldnt do shit about it. After ten thousand satellites from everywhere people dont worry that much. Its puzzling to me why balloon-gate revives the same fears.

1

Tex-Rob t1_j8zwqfl wrote

Reply to comment by Same-Intern7716 in Chemists have discovered a new form of ice that more closely resembles liquid water than any other known ices, and they think it might be present on solar system moons likes Europa and Ganymede. by clayt6

I think a near future sci-fi movie about exploring jupiters moons from an orbital station around Jupiter would be so cool. Maybe someone like Astrum could do it as a what if short or something.

8