39 ms·
North Korea to Launch Military Spy Satellite for Monitoring U.S. Drills
- jl6 3y agoAre the orbits of spy satellites agreed with any international institutions (e.g. to avoid collisions) or is it all secret and a free-for-all?
- neom 3y agoI live in South Korea, according to our media the North filed today with the international maritime organization (UN), why that particular org... I have no clue. SK also said the launch would be illegal and they may shoot it down if they launch it. Doubt they will. Notably China and Russia countered saying it is legal.
- BillyTheMage 3y agoScrew North Korea and all that, but it seems absolutely wild to me for it to be illegal for a country to launch their own satellites.
- qup 3y agoWhat does this even mean? Illegal just means the other team says they can't do it. I can't believe that you're very surprised that our team told their team no. NK is almost universally regarded as a bad actor.
- htag 3y agoIdeally the law provides equal protections and rights to everyone. International law is much further from this ideal than US National law, and many people are surprised to learn details about international law.
- kevviiinn 3y agoIf it's equal, why can we do it and they cannot?
- htag 3y agoThat's kind of the point. International law isn't equal, there is often an 'us vs them'. The two are very different realms.
- BillyTheMage 3y agoAll law is written by crooks for their own benefit. National law has 'us vs them' baked into it just as much as international law.
- neom 3y agoIt's because of the type of rocket they're launching it on. They're using an ICBM that there is an international regulation on.
- khuey 3y agoAny rocket capable of reaching orbit is potentially an ICBM.
- neom 3y agoNK are specifically prohibited from launching ICBMs under international regulation. Launching them is "illegal". They've test launched a few in the past that were wildly condemned, this is the first time South Korea has threatened to shoot one down, although I'm certain they won't.
- RobotToaster 3y ago>NK are specifically prohibited from launching ICBMs under international regulation What regulations specifically? It seems doubtful the DPRK agreed to those regulations? Edit: I looked it up, it was some random security council resolution, which are usually toothless.
- neom 3y agoYou're missing the point. South Korea would be well within their rights under international law to shoot down the North Korean rocket that is launching the satellite with no repercussions from the international community. I doubt they will because it would probably start WW3, however they have said they may.
- ckozlowski 3y agoGiving notice to the International Maritime Organization is good practice. The reason being is that there's a danger that pieces (or the booster itself) could or will fall into the sea, posing a danger to shipping. For example, in Florida, launches have been delayed when boats stray into the exclusion zone, and the U.S. Coast Guard assists with this. As for the legality, that's a UN question. Sovereign airspace plays a role, along with whatever UN Security Council resolutions are applicable.
- belter 3y agoSecret and free for all. "The world must cooperate to avoid a catastrophic space collision" (2021) - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02167-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02167-5 "...At the European Space Agency’s operations centre in Darmstadt, Germany, which controls key research spacecraft, hundreds of e-mail alerts arrive each day warning of potential space smash-ups. And, in May, NASA engineers spotted a 5-millimetre-wide hole in one of the International Space Station’s robotic arms, created by a collision with an unknown piece of space junk..."
- ckozlowski 3y agoYup! Those aspects are covered in the Outer Space treaty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty Most satellites are registered and their orbital data published. This includes reconnaissance satellites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registration_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registration_Convention You can find them here: https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/spaceobjectregister/index.html https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/spaceobjectregister/index.htm... If you drill into the submissions from say, the USA, you can look up the "USA-###" designations and see USSF and NRO launches. I believe however, that this data may not always be up to date, and might only reflect the orbital characteristics at time of launch, and not reflect subsequent maneuvers. Some reconnaissance satellites are then harder to track, and it's a bit of a hobby for those who don't have access to an enormous space radar. =P But that's where the Space Liability convention comes into play. Basically, if you launched it, you're responsible for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Liability_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Liability_Convention
- belter 3y agoThe treaty does not require disclosure of all orbital parameters. And spy satellites do not publicly disclose specific orbits, even if they are not difficult to discover. "China berates US after ‘close encounters’ with Elon Musk satellites - Beijing urges US to act responsibly after two near misses that it says posed serious threat to astronauts’ lives" (2021) - https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/dec/28/china-complains-to-un-after-space-station-is-forced-to-move-to-avoid-starlink-satellites https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/dec/28/china-compla... See "Online Index of Objects Launched into Outer Space" - https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/osoindex/search-ng.jspx https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/osoindex/search-ng.jspx Most if not all Starlink say "Not registered with the United Nations."
- ckozlowski 3y agoWith regards to Starlink, there's a backlog. The link there shows Starlink launches in 2023. If you look at the register (https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/spaceobjectregister/index.html https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/spaceobjectregister/index.htm...), there's a list of submissions yet to be processed. But for those that have been, Starlink makes up a majority. For example: https://www.unoosa.org/res/osoindex/data/documents/us/st/stsgser_e1071_html/2211053E.pdf https://www.unoosa.org/res/osoindex/data/documents/us/st/sts... Note the "USA-###" launches in there as well with the basic orbital characteristics. (USA-327 being the first mentioned above, a ocean reconnaissance satellite.) I take comments of China berating the US with collision threats with a grain of salt. But it does of course highlight the need to share such data and for parties to act in good faith.
- ThinkBeat 3y agoStarlink was not agreed upon by any international institutions. It appears to be free for all and up to each nation to decide how many thousand satellites they wish to have orbiting our planet. I have been expecting that soon the US will take to the airwaves and announce the urgent need for an international body to regulate how many satellites can be put into orbit and by whom. Starlink is of course grandfathered into the new system. Yes, we approved the launch of thousands of satellites by ourselves but what is done is done, what we need now is to stop other nations from doing the same.
- LatteLazy 3y agoIf you can put an object into orbit, you can put it into any major (US or other) city within about 45min and no one can intercept it.
- lettergram 3y agoI personally see very little risk from North Korea. Put simply, they know they’ll be destroyed if they lash out. They just don’t want to be invaded and deposed. I wouldn’t doubt once they get their ICBM program up if they start improving living standards. They can then adjust their GDP allocation, and reduce their investment in their military. To be clear, completely think their government is beyond horrible. Do not support or condone in any way. That said, I’m observing their own statements & actions, which indicate they are very defensive
- OOTY00TYOO 3y ago[flagged]
- hef19898 3y agoWhich exact administration? NK is a family dynasty since the 50s.
- LatteLazy 3y agoI like your optimism. For the rest of the world, I don't think they "will" but I don't like that they "could". And I expect we will be paying protection money accordingly...
- bell-cot 3y ago> I wouldn’t doubt once they get their ICBM program up if they start improving living standards. They can then adjust their GDP allocation, and reduce their investment in their military. "Giant Evil threatens our motherland!" paranoia is very useful for keeping a closed society's dictatorship in power. Regardless of whether any Great Evil exists. Or has any interest in said motherland. Vs. over the past (say) 50 years, how many authoritarian governments have fallen, after their attempts to pivot from paranoia to more openness-and-prosperity-focused stances went wrong?
- aaron695 3y ago[dead]
- BillyTheMage 3y ago"Defense stocks rise" bothers me infinitely more than "North Korea might have a satellite sometime next year"
- m000 3y agoThat reads a bit like a SimCity/Railroad Tycoon in-game newspaper pop-up.
- BillyTheMage 3y agoCould definitely be a Chirp on Cities Skylines.
- josefresco 3y agoOne man's satellite delivery rocket is another man's ICBM. Ongoing progress in rocket design and experience is more concerning to me than a rise in value of 2 defense stocks.
- nradov 3y agoWell yes and no. While it is technically possible to use a satellite launcher to deliver a nuclear weapon, those technologies have almost completely diverged in most countries. Satellite launch rockets are almost all liquid fueled now in order to maximize payload. Some early ICBMs were also liquid fueled, but that made them less effective as deterrents due to long launch delays. Modern ICBMs are solid fueled: not enough specific impulse to be very useful for orbital launch, but great for sending a warhead on a sub-orbital trajectory with no advance notice. Don't need to waste time with fueling, just turn the keys and it goes.
- chongli 3y agoThat makes sense from a Western perspective where the primary value of nuclear weapons is deterrence. But for North Korea the calculus is different. North Korea already has a conventional deterrent in the form of artillery that could be fired at Seoul and do enormous damage in a matter of seconds. Instead, their goal with nuclear weapons seems to be nuclear blackmail to obtain food and other economic aid to prop up their dysfunctional economy and support their totalitarian regime. For that purpose, liquid fueled rockets are fine because they don’t need to be fired at a moment’s notice. So it’s not hard to see how a space program could be used to further nuclear aims.
- hunglee2 3y ago[flagged]