5 ms·

Probably going to be downvoted into oblivion, but I think China is pushing and pushing to make such things "normal". The rest of the world need to start sancti

by dotdi 5y ago

Probably going to be downvoted into oblivion, but I think China is pushing and pushing to make such things "normal". The rest of the world need to start sanctioning China whenever the government acts in bad faith or with recklessness, before others follow suit. Leaving these things unanswered is an open invitation. It's not the first time this happens. Without response it won't be the last.

Jiocus 5y ago
What supports your belief that China are pushing this to become normal, as opposed to not being already the norm? A closer look at some of the large objects which has re-entered[1] as well as a few cases of incidents[2] and their origins, suggests the USA together with USSR then Russia normalised this practice decades ago. Edit: A natural consequence of them being the first and largest players in the game of slinging large objects into orbit. - [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reentering_space_debris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reentering_space_debri... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris#On_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris#On_Earth
- kingofpandora 5y ago
  Two uncontrolled entries since 1967 doesn't sound like normalized behaviour.
  - Jiocus 5y ago
    I don't know where you got 'two' from, nor why '1967' is a significant year. Care to elaborate?
    - kingofpandora 5y ago
      It's data from the Wikipedia article you shared. You said it's normal practice but I say it's only happened twice in over 50 years.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - Jiocus 5y ago
        The list of reentered large debris provides a list of 11 uncontrolled examples through 1964-2018. This list is both incomplete and doesn't take into account future known events, such as the one in OP article. I would prefer more complete data on this but the examples suggest that the largest actors in the space industry have historically contributed the most to uncontrolled large objects reentry.
        kingofpandora 5y ago
        11 since 1964, but only only two of those since 1967 - scratch that is now THREE since China just did it. In other words was hardly normal for the historical space powers for the last 50+ years. But I'm not even sure what you are arguing anymore. First you say: > What supports your belief that China are pushing this to become normal, as opposed to not being already the norm? A closer look at some of the large objects which has re-entered as well as a few cases of incidents and their origins, suggests the USA together with USSR then Russia normalised this practice decades ago. Then: > This list is both incomplete and doesn't take into account future known events, such as the one in OP article... Everyone stopped doing uncontrolled reentries ages ago, and now China has started doing it, which is the whole reason for the OP. But you seem to want to redirect criticism away from China and back onto the USA and USSR/Russia.
        Dah00n 5y ago
        >Everyone stopped doing uncontrolled reentries ages ago SpaceX Falcon 9 second stage dropped debris on Canada and Washington state in march 2021. There's nothing abnormal in uncontrolled reentries when using new equipment (in rocket time that is quite a long time). Faults happen. It's this or no rockets at all.
        dotdi 5y ago
        > Faults happen. True, yet this was not a fault. It was designed to crash back down, or at least was not designed to not crash down.
londons_explore 5y ago
The US government set a standard for space launch risks. I believe it was "for each launch, the chance of killing an innocent bystander must be less than 1 in 10,000". I suspect this Chinese launch met this standard. If it crashes to the ground, the chance it hitting someone is still very small - most of the earth is water, and most of the land isn't densely populated. If that's the case, we can't complain. They met the same rules we would have done.
- KineticLensman 5y ago
  > I believe it was "for each launch, the chance of killing an innocent bystander must be less than 1 in 10,000". The earliest thing I can find that seems relevant is the Convention on the international liability for damage caused by space objects [0] which was published by the US and USSR in 1972. This doesn't list risk in terms of probabilities of deaths but instead makes it clear that signatories are "absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused". It is in turn based on the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. Interestingly, gov.uk has detailed current guidance for entities applying for licenses to launch from the UK [1]. This states that "all licences issued must state a limit to the operator’s liability to indemnify UK Government for claims". [0] https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20961/volume-961-I-13810-English.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20961/vo... [1] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/apply-for-a-license-under-the-outer-space-act-1986#space-liability-and-insurance-requirements https://www.gov.uk/guidance/apply-for-a-license-under-the-ou...
  - moreira 5y ago
    Off-topic but man, the gov.uk website doesn't cease to amaze. There's a freaking page with everything laid out, explaining everything you need to know about launching a satellite. Background history, relevant law, documents needed, everything you need to know. It's all there, in a clear, concise, easy-to-follow format. It's brilliant.
  - Rebelgecko 5y ago
    NASA ODAR reports utilize the 1 in 10,000 language, although those are for debris in general, not launches and the probability is for any injuries, not just death.
lupire 5y ago
That's a universal observation -- people do what they want until they are resisted
dang 5y ago
Please don't take HN threads into nationalistic flamewar. It's particularly bad to do it in such a generic way. Can you please not post like this to HN? If you want to understand why, the place to start is https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, and there is a ton of past explanation at the following links: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20flamewar%20nationalist&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20ideolog%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20-recycling%20chin&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... You'll need to scroll past the shorter routine comments to find the longer, in-depth ones, but they're there. (Also, please omit downvote baiting in the future. That's also in the site guidelines.) p.s. I looked at your recent comment history, expecting to find what I usually do (more flamewar) and was pleasantly surprised to see no pattern of this. That's good! please stick to using HN as intended.
- dotdi 5y ago
  > and was pleasantly surprised to see no pattern of this. I generally keep out of such discussions, however, and with all due respect, my comment here had no nationalistic motivation and speaks about the Chinese government, not the Chinese race or even populace. It's about a government who has a demonstrable history of acting in bad faith[0], nation-level bullying[1], human rights violations[2], etc. So when that government approves a rocket designed so that it will not burn up but crash somewhere, a piece of information directly taken from the linked article, I can't help but notice it fits into a pattern. --- [0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/56364952 https://www.bbc.com/news/56364952 [1]: https://www.economist.com/china/2020/12/05/how-chinas-bullying-could-backfire https://www.economist.com/china/2020/12/05/how-chinas-bullyi... [2]: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/global https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/globa...
  - dang 5y ago
    Let's not mince definitions. It was a flamewar comment about a nation, hence nationalistic flamebait. Please don't do that here–it's not what this site is for. You did even more of it in your reply to my moderation comment. That's usually a really bad sign.
gremlinsinc 5y ago
Couldn't someone send boosters or something to nudge it so it lands in Beijing?

by dotdi 5y ago

Jiocus 5y ago

What supports your belief that China are pushing this to become normal, as opposed to not being already the norm? A closer look at some of the large objects which has re-entered[1] as well as a few cases of incidents[2] and their origins, suggests the USA together with USSR then Russia normalised this practice decades ago. Edit: A natural consequence of them being the first and largest players in the game of slinging large objects into orbit. - [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reentering_space_debris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reentering_space_debri... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris#On_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris#On_Earth

kingofpandora 5y ago
Two uncontrolled entries since 1967 doesn't sound like normalized behaviour.
- Jiocus 5y ago
  I don't know where you got 'two' from, nor why '1967' is a significant year. Care to elaborate?
  - kingofpandora 5y ago
    It's data from the Wikipedia article you shared. You said it's normal practice but I say it's only happened twice in over 50 years.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - Jiocus 5y ago
      The list of reentered large debris provides a list of 11 uncontrolled examples through 1964-2018. This list is both incomplete and doesn't take into account future known events, such as the one in OP article. I would prefer more complete data on this but the examples suggest that the largest actors in the space industry have historically contributed the most to uncontrolled large objects reentry.
      - kingofpandora 5y ago
        11 since 1964, but only only two of those since 1967 - scratch that is now THREE since China just did it. In other words was hardly normal for the historical space powers for the last 50+ years. But I'm not even sure what you are arguing anymore. First you say: > What supports your belief that China are pushing this to become normal, as opposed to not being already the norm? A closer look at some of the large objects which has re-entered as well as a few cases of incidents and their origins, suggests the USA together with USSR then Russia normalised this practice decades ago. Then: > This list is both incomplete and doesn't take into account future known events, such as the one in OP article... Everyone stopped doing uncontrolled reentries ages ago, and now China has started doing it, which is the whole reason for the OP. But you seem to want to redirect criticism away from China and back onto the USA and USSR/Russia.
        Dah00n 5y ago
        >Everyone stopped doing uncontrolled reentries ages ago SpaceX Falcon 9 second stage dropped debris on Canada and Washington state in march 2021. There's nothing abnormal in uncontrolled reentries when using new equipment (in rocket time that is quite a long time). Faults happen. It's this or no rockets at all.
        dotdi 5y ago
        > Faults happen. True, yet this was not a fault. It was designed to crash back down, or at least was not designed to not crash down.

londons_explore 5y ago

The US government set a standard for space launch risks. I believe it was "for each launch, the chance of killing an innocent bystander must be less than 1 in 10,000". I suspect this Chinese launch met this standard. If it crashes to the ground, the chance it hitting someone is still very small - most of the earth is water, and most of the land isn't densely populated. If that's the case, we can't complain. They met the same rules we would have done.

KineticLensman 5y ago
> I believe it was "for each launch, the chance of killing an innocent bystander must be less than 1 in 10,000". The earliest thing I can find that seems relevant is the Convention on the international liability for damage caused by space objects [0] which was published by the US and USSR in 1972. This doesn't list risk in terms of probabilities of deaths but instead makes it clear that signatories are "absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused". It is in turn based on the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. Interestingly, gov.uk has detailed current guidance for entities applying for licenses to launch from the UK [1]. This states that "all licences issued must state a limit to the operator’s liability to indemnify UK Government for claims". [0] https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20961/volume-961-I-13810-English.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20961/vo... [1] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/apply-for-a-license-under-the-outer-space-act-1986#space-liability-and-insurance-requirements https://www.gov.uk/guidance/apply-for-a-license-under-the-ou...
- moreira 5y ago
  Off-topic but man, the gov.uk website doesn't cease to amaze. There's a freaking page with everything laid out, explaining everything you need to know about launching a satellite. Background history, relevant law, documents needed, everything you need to know. It's all there, in a clear, concise, easy-to-follow format. It's brilliant.
- Rebelgecko 5y ago
  NASA ODAR reports utilize the 1 in 10,000 language, although those are for debris in general, not launches and the probability is for any injuries, not just death.

lupire 5y ago

That's a universal observation -- people do what they want until they are resisted

dang 5y ago

Please don't take HN threads into nationalistic flamewar. It's particularly bad to do it in such a generic way. Can you please not post like this to HN? If you want to understand why, the place to start is https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, and there is a ton of past explanation at the following links: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20flamewar%20nationalist&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20ideolog%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20-recycling%20chin&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... You'll need to scroll past the shorter routine comments to find the longer, in-depth ones, but they're there. (Also, please omit downvote baiting in the future. That's also in the site guidelines.) p.s. I looked at your recent comment history, expecting to find what I usually do (more flamewar) and was pleasantly surprised to see no pattern of this. That's good! please stick to using HN as intended.

dotdi 5y ago
> and was pleasantly surprised to see no pattern of this. I generally keep out of such discussions, however, and with all due respect, my comment here had no nationalistic motivation and speaks about the Chinese government, not the Chinese race or even populace. It's about a government who has a demonstrable history of acting in bad faith[0], nation-level bullying[1], human rights violations[2], etc. So when that government approves a rocket designed so that it will not burn up but crash somewhere, a piece of information directly taken from the linked article, I can't help but notice it fits into a pattern. --- [0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/56364952 https://www.bbc.com/news/56364952 [1]: https://www.economist.com/china/2020/12/05/how-chinas-bullying-could-backfire https://www.economist.com/china/2020/12/05/how-chinas-bullyi... [2]: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/global https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/globa...
- dang 5y ago
  Let's not mince definitions. It was a flamewar comment about a nation, hence nationalistic flamebait. Please don't do that here–it's not what this site is for. You did even more of it in your reply to my moderation comment. That's usually a really bad sign.

gremlinsinc 5y ago

Couldn't someone send boosters or something to nudge it so it lands in Beijing?