6 ms·

So suppose these satellites do go up, If they aren't in the jurisdiction of any single country, whats stopping the US(or any country) from just shooting them do

So suppose these satellites do go up, If they aren't in the jurisdiction of any single country, whats stopping the US(or any country) from just shooting them down?

okal 15y ago
My guess, and it's pure speculation, would be that so many satellites would be launched as to make it untenable to keep doing so over the long run.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
atakan_gurkan 15y ago
The debris would be harmful to other satellites in orbit. Since it introduces significant risk, they cannot just shoot them down without a good reason.
- gldalmaso 15y ago
  Precisely, here's a more in depth rationale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_Syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_Syndrome Nations have become increasingly conscientious about this problem after a couple of incidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris#Debris_from_and_as_a_weapon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris#Debris_from_and_as...
- hahhichood 15y ago
  I would imagine they are working on, or already have, methods for disabling satellites without blowing them up and nudging them out of a stable orbit. Must be a way to ruin the solar panels with a laser or similar. I assume non-state actors won't be able to launch satellites that use a nuclear energy source?
  - smhinsey 15y ago
    The X-37 (or whatever it ends up being called in the future) likely could snatch them right out of orbit without harming anything. I have no idea if it would be worth the expense, but that sort of capability is almost certainly a goal of the design. I have no doubt that at least the USAF and maybe their foreign counterparts are very invested in just this problem.
  - derrida 15y ago
    Just launch a giant magnet at close range past it and head for the atmosphere. No debris, just burn-up.
  - tomjen3 15y ago
    A group that can launch a satellite in orbit is also capable of launching a nuclear weapon in orbit. (That is the reason the US was so freak by Sputnik). So presumably the US is smart enough not to mess with such groups (even if they don't actually have nuclear weapons they would still be able to do great damage with conventional explosions or even a piece of rock).
    - JabavuAdams 15y ago
      This makes no sense. If I declare that tomorrow I'm going to launch a satellite, without going through official channels, I go to jail. If I don't announce it beforehand and just launch, then I'd better hope I don't start a nuclear war.
- a_a_r_o_n 15y ago
  Would the satellites themselves be harmful to other satellites?
- JabavuAdams 15y ago
  But, they don't have to allow them to be launched in the first place. Unless this goes through official channels, it becomes a ballistic missile proliferation issue, which the powers that be are somewhat twitchy about.
sunchild 15y ago
Actually, if I recall correctly, most nations consider all airspace above them to be within their national boundaries. Pretty stupid, I know, but probably one of those things that worked "well enough" until technology made it seem absurd. I remember this came up because people were getting served process on airplanes, even if they never landed in the country/state beneath them at that moment.
- baddox 15y ago
  Airspace sounds like it wouldn't include space without air, so maybe it should be called spacespace. That's a pretty interesting idea: the United States would own 1.9% of the observable universe.
  - sunchild 15y ago
    Good point. I'm not sure if "airspace" actually means space that contains some quantum of "air", but even that falls apart pretty quickly.
  - jacquesm 15y ago
    That would have to be a timeshare then, the earth rotates.
  - justincormack 15y ago
    Its been tried before: "A space ownership issue of current practical importance is the allocation of slots for satellites in geostationary orbit. This is managed by the International Telecommunication Union. The 1976 Declaration of the First Meeting of Equatorial Countries, also known as the Bogotá Declaration, signed by several countries located on the Earth's equator, attempted to assert sovereignty over those portions of the geosynchronous orbit that continuously lie over the signatory nation's territory. These claims did not receive international support or recognition and were subsequently largely abandoned." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_real_estate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_real_estate
- nkoren 15y ago
  Airspace, yes. Space space, no -- Jurisdiction doesn't extend above the atmosphere. Rather, objects in space are governed by and the legal responsibility of the country from which they launched, per the Outer Space Treaty. The reason for this, by the way, dates back to a bit of cold war strategising which pre-dated even Sputnik. Both the Americans and Soviets decided that it was more important to be able to know what the other was doing than to extend their territorial claims up to orbit. This helped to keep the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction in a relatively static lock; otherwise it would have been far mor dynamic and dangerous. Therefore the US did not protest when Sputnik flew overhead, and the USSR did not object to American satellites; in 1967 this was formalised by the Outer Space Treaty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
rmc 15y ago
If the satilites are cheap enough (say €100) you just launch more. Let the whack a mole game begin. Other factors: the space might not be owned by anyone but the satilites might be. Sure the US government in us courts for damages. Get an injunction ruok prevent them doing it again.
- daeken 15y ago
  Even if the satellites are cheap -- hell, let's even say they're free -- launching things into space is not, by any means. As for the satellites being owned by someone, how do you assert ownership on something that exists where there are absolutely no laws?
  - rmc 15y ago
    Asserting ownership is as simple as convincing a judge. As far as I know NASA/US Government claims ownership of US satilites, so the precedent has already been set.
  - tomjen3 15y ago
    The launch will be cheap as soon as we build that damn space elevator (which I believe is currently technologically feasible, correct?).
- JabavuAdams 15y ago
  What!? Try to play the other side, at least. Whack-a-launcher is way easier than whack-a-satellite.

So suppose these satellites do go up, If they aren't in the jurisdiction of any single country, whats stopping the US(or any country) from just shooting them down?

okal 15y ago

My guess, and it's pure speculation, would be that so many satellites would be launched as to make it untenable to keep doing so over the long run.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

atakan_gurkan 15y ago

The debris would be harmful to other satellites in orbit. Since it introduces significant risk, they cannot just shoot them down without a good reason.

gldalmaso 15y ago
Precisely, here's a more in depth rationale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_Syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_Syndrome Nations have become increasingly conscientious about this problem after a couple of incidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris#Debris_from_and_as_a_weapon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris#Debris_from_and_as...
hahhichood 15y ago
I would imagine they are working on, or already have, methods for disabling satellites without blowing them up and nudging them out of a stable orbit. Must be a way to ruin the solar panels with a laser or similar. I assume non-state actors won't be able to launch satellites that use a nuclear energy source?
- smhinsey 15y ago
  The X-37 (or whatever it ends up being called in the future) likely could snatch them right out of orbit without harming anything. I have no idea if it would be worth the expense, but that sort of capability is almost certainly a goal of the design. I have no doubt that at least the USAF and maybe their foreign counterparts are very invested in just this problem.
- derrida 15y ago
  Just launch a giant magnet at close range past it and head for the atmosphere. No debris, just burn-up.
- tomjen3 15y ago
  A group that can launch a satellite in orbit is also capable of launching a nuclear weapon in orbit. (That is the reason the US was so freak by Sputnik). So presumably the US is smart enough not to mess with such groups (even if they don't actually have nuclear weapons they would still be able to do great damage with conventional explosions or even a piece of rock).
  - JabavuAdams 15y ago
    This makes no sense. If I declare that tomorrow I'm going to launch a satellite, without going through official channels, I go to jail. If I don't announce it beforehand and just launch, then I'd better hope I don't start a nuclear war.
a_a_r_o_n 15y ago
Would the satellites themselves be harmful to other satellites?
JabavuAdams 15y ago
But, they don't have to allow them to be launched in the first place. Unless this goes through official channels, it becomes a ballistic missile proliferation issue, which the powers that be are somewhat twitchy about.

sunchild 15y ago

Actually, if I recall correctly, most nations consider all airspace above them to be within their national boundaries. Pretty stupid, I know, but probably one of those things that worked "well enough" until technology made it seem absurd. I remember this came up because people were getting served process on airplanes, even if they never landed in the country/state beneath them at that moment.

baddox 15y ago
Airspace sounds like it wouldn't include space without air, so maybe it should be called spacespace. That's a pretty interesting idea: the United States would own 1.9% of the observable universe.
- sunchild 15y ago
  Good point. I'm not sure if "airspace" actually means space that contains some quantum of "air", but even that falls apart pretty quickly.
- jacquesm 15y ago
  That would have to be a timeshare then, the earth rotates.
- justincormack 15y ago
  Its been tried before: "A space ownership issue of current practical importance is the allocation of slots for satellites in geostationary orbit. This is managed by the International Telecommunication Union. The 1976 Declaration of the First Meeting of Equatorial Countries, also known as the Bogotá Declaration, signed by several countries located on the Earth's equator, attempted to assert sovereignty over those portions of the geosynchronous orbit that continuously lie over the signatory nation's territory. These claims did not receive international support or recognition and were subsequently largely abandoned." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_real_estate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_real_estate
nkoren 15y ago
Airspace, yes. Space space, no -- Jurisdiction doesn't extend above the atmosphere. Rather, objects in space are governed by and the legal responsibility of the country from which they launched, per the Outer Space Treaty. The reason for this, by the way, dates back to a bit of cold war strategising which pre-dated even Sputnik. Both the Americans and Soviets decided that it was more important to be able to know what the other was doing than to extend their territorial claims up to orbit. This helped to keep the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction in a relatively static lock; otherwise it would have been far mor dynamic and dangerous. Therefore the US did not protest when Sputnik flew overhead, and the USSR did not object to American satellites; in 1967 this was formalised by the Outer Space Treaty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

rmc 15y ago

If the satilites are cheap enough (say €100) you just launch more. Let the whack a mole game begin. Other factors: the space might not be owned by anyone but the satilites might be. Sure the US government in us courts for damages. Get an injunction ruok prevent them doing it again.

daeken 15y ago
Even if the satellites are cheap -- hell, let's even say they're free -- launching things into space is not, by any means. As for the satellites being owned by someone, how do you assert ownership on something that exists where there are absolutely no laws?
- rmc 15y ago
  Asserting ownership is as simple as convincing a judge. As far as I know NASA/US Government claims ownership of US satilites, so the precedent has already been set.
- tomjen3 15y ago
  The launch will be cheap as soon as we build that damn space elevator (which I believe is currently technologically feasible, correct?).
JabavuAdams 15y ago
What!? Try to play the other side, at least. Whack-a-launcher is way easier than whack-a-satellite.