4 ms·

Are 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?

by jl6 3y ago

neom 3y ago
I 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 ago
  Screw 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 ago
    What 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 ago
      Ideally 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 ago
        If it's equal, why can we do it and they cannot?
        htag 3y ago
        That'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 ago
        All 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 ago
    It'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 ago
      Any rocket capable of reaching orbit is potentially an ICBM.
      - neom 3y ago
        NK 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 ago
        You'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 ago
  Giving 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 ago
Secret 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 ago
Yup! 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    With 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 ago
Starlink 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.

Are 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?

by jl6 3y ago

Are 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 ago

I 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 ago
Screw 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 ago
  What 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 ago
    Ideally 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 ago
      If it's equal, why can we do it and they cannot?
      - htag 3y ago
        That'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 ago
        All 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 ago
  It'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 ago
    Any rocket capable of reaching orbit is potentially an ICBM.
    - neom 3y ago
      NK 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 ago
        You'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 ago
Giving 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 ago

Secret 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 ago

Yup! 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 ago
The 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 ago
  With 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 ago

Starlink 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.