4 ms·

> 62 miles (100 km) altitude is where the border lies. This is incorrect on several levels (which, of course, did not prevent you from downvoting my post): *

> 62 miles (100 km) altitude is where the border lies. This is incorrect on several levels (which, of course, did not prevent you from downvoting my post): * The Outer Space Treaty does not have a definition of the boundary. Here it is, go ahead, look it up: http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/oute.... It's hardly a "law" (technically, a treaty is not a law either), more of a set of guidelines and some more concrete restrictions to solve some Cold War issues. * You are referring to the Kármán line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kármán_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kármán_line) which is commonly referred to as a boundary between the atmosphere and the outer space. * On the other hand, the United States considers an "astronaut" anyone who has flown over 50 miles (80 km) above the surface. You already see the discrepancy, don't you? Most importantly though, both "boundaries" are merely working benchmarks, without any legal authority. The actual boundaries are determined by national laws. I have no doubt that many, if not most national laws have no such boundaries defined at all. (Heck, if the US doesn't have a solid definition, then who does?) Finally: > It's still a categorical "not" as far as international law goes What is that "international law"? Not the Outer Space Treaty, I presume? If you seriously believe that China openly violated a specific law, I'd be curious to know what law it was. Generally speaking, "law" is an enforceable set of rules. The "international law" is, sans special cases like war crimes, a misnomer. Even if we look at something more mundane and reachable like maritime borders, which are more or less firmly defined, they've been disputed a bajillion times (for example, Spratly Islands) or simply ignored or "freely interpreted" (Russia's Arctic exploration). I maintain, we have a gray zone here.

Dylan16807 9y ago
Yes, sometimes there's a gray zone about the edge of space. But those heights are well below the height you need for a stable orbit. Anything orbiting multiple times is in space, and nobody will argue. So in the context of satellites, you're wrong.
- vadimberman 9y ago
  Are you another eager downvoter without reading? The context is about the vertical extent of the national borders, not the edge of space. Who says the vertical border ends with the edge of space? Once again, the vertical extent is not defined. Say, tomorrow they come up with a Skylon-like contraption that will be used in civil aviation. That would give a reason to the national governments to redefine the notion of "airspace". > Anything orbiting multiple times is in space, and nobody will argue. And how do you know that? Once again, with the example of China, nobody could come up with counterarguments precisely because it's undefined.

Dylan16807 9y ago

Yes, sometimes there's a gray zone about the edge of space. But those heights are well below the height you need for a stable orbit. Anything orbiting multiple times is in space, and nobody will argue. So in the context of satellites, you're wrong.

vadimberman 9y ago
Are you another eager downvoter without reading? The context is about the vertical extent of the national borders, not the edge of space. Who says the vertical border ends with the edge of space? Once again, the vertical extent is not defined. Say, tomorrow they come up with a Skylon-like contraption that will be used in civil aviation. That would give a reason to the national governments to redefine the notion of "airspace". > Anything orbiting multiple times is in space, and nobody will argue. And how do you know that? Once again, with the example of China, nobody could come up with counterarguments precisely because it's undefined.