Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

fighterace00 t1_j8z3kty wrote

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

Being in orbit has no impact on your location in space when suborbital exists

3

HolyGig t1_j8z50ca wrote

You can argue semantics if you want to but suborbital flights that could produce any sort of surveillance capability would reach altitudes considerably higher than those necessary to complete actual orbits.

0

fighterace00 t1_j8znnu0 wrote

I could throw a go pro over a prison yard and get surveillance capability. Suborbital apogee can be any altitude.

3

HolyGig t1_j8zopvz wrote

Altitude is correlated to distance traveled down range unless you have a rocket motor with infinite fuel. Please, show my the viable launch position that would achieve the desired surveillance at a lower altitude than a satellite could that isn't then going to smash into US territory somewhere.

1

fighterace00 t1_j8zp6zy wrote

What does smashing into us territory have to do with how we define space? In fact suborbital means you're going to smash anyway. In fact, altitude has 0 to do with where you land if there's no horizontal vector.

2

HolyGig t1_j8zrxp3 wrote

When were we trying to define space? We are talking about valid surveillance tactics. You don't need a horizontal vector at all if the earth rotates below you and you have enough.... altitude.

Suborbital isn't a valid surveillance method because that is otherwise known as an ICBM and its gonna look exactly like one on radar. Which, returns to my original point:

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

If you aren't in orbit then you are a threat and a target.

1

fighterace00 t1_j9032pv wrote

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

HolyGig t1_j904pxw wrote

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_j90ceq8 wrote

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_j90dsw0 wrote

National boundaries are dependent on being on Earth. Each country has its airspace and whatever above that is mostly fair game, which practically speaking means satellites almost exclusively.

Orbit is protected because we all require satellites to function if we want modern life to function. That includes Russia, China and everyone else too. If you trash MEO or GEO it will be trashed for decades if not centuries. Frankly it makes some sense for everyone to not be completely in the dark on the capabilities of everyone else anyways and regulating surveillance from orbit is basically impossible

So those are the limits everyone has de facto agreed with whether there's a specific treaty outlining it or not. Nobody would be playing with balloons if they didn't produce better intelligence in some capacity. SIGINT is the most obvious.

1