4 ms·

In the United States, restricted airspace is (broadly, the rules are not simple) between 1,200 and 60,000 feet. Above and below that is unrestricted airspace.

In the United States, restricted airspace is (broadly, the rules are not simple) between 1,200 and 60,000 feet. Above and below that is unrestricted airspace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_%28United_States%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_%28United_State... Pedantic niggle regarding TFA: Putting a server in a balloon is nothing at all like achieving orbit. An object in orbit is both high and fast. Really high (160km) and really fast. (7.8km/s) 7.8 kilometres per second is 17,000 miles per hour. A server in a balloon is not in orbit in much the same way that a toddler in a tricycle is not a F1 car.

polemic 15y ago
Weirdly - we were talking in the office last week about what it would take to get something into orbit from, for example, a rail gun. We calculated that for a 100m rail gun and a 0.5 kilogram payload you'd need to feed it about a 100 MW power source (over about a tenth of a second) to accelerate it to the necessary 7.8 km/s. That doesn't include the energy needed to get it to altitude. Naturally, if TPB could actually put something into orbit on a commercially viable basis, they could probably afford to fund their pirate service as a teeny part of the Enormous Space Freighting Corporation that would naturally to ensure... just sayin'.
- kragen 15y ago
  A friend of mine just mentioned http://startram.com/ http://startram.com/ to me this weekend; apparently sending something into orbit from a ground-mounted rail gun is possible in certain parts of the world. They also propose magnetically levitating the end of the railgun by a few thousand more meters for a later version that can use lower G-forces. Last year I did some calculations about mounting the railgun on a dirigible: http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen-tol/2011-August/000939.html http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen-tol/2011-August/... The usual way to power railguns (or particle accelerators) is with giant high-voltage capacitors, which can discharge their energy very quickly. I forget the term of art used for this particular kind of capacitor, unfortunately. Startram suggests using superconducting magnetic energy storage, which has apparently become practical recently; and giant homopolar generators with flywheels are another (low-voltage) alternative.
reedlaw 15y ago
They could use a commercial space transport service to send the payload into orbit. A company was offering suborbital space launches for a mere $250/kg in 2006: http://blog.makezine.com/2006/04/13/send-some-stuff-to-space/ http://blog.makezine.com/2006/04/13/send-some-stuff-to-space...
- kragen 15y ago
  It turns out that the "really high" part of getting things into orbit is actually considerably easier than the "really fast" part. Getting a rocket out of the atmosphere is one thing, but getting it to miss the entire Earth when it falls back down, which is what "orbit" means, is something else entirely.
run4yourlives 15y ago
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about who "owns" the airspace of a given country. The US - as do other countries - retain the exclusive right of use of their airspace at all times. ICAO and all airspace classes are not global "laws" and/or treaties that countries are bound by, they are standards that countries choose to accept. Any attempt to launch a "flying server" in "uncontrolled" airspace will be met instantly with one of the following measures by pretty much any country: 1. If it is assessed as a threat by whatever definition the government in question decides to use, and it is either in geo-stationary orbit above a country or in high altitude, it will be forcibly removed by the air force. (This is why we don't park satellites over Russia. They can and will assert their authority over their airspace and everyone will agree with them)... U2 anyone? 2. If it is low enough to be tethered to the ground, it will most likely fall under local zoning laws and/or within restricted airspace, and will be dealt with pretty damn quick as a hazard, regardless of intent. 3. If it isn't tethered to the ground and also in the middle of nowhere, its "broadcasting" more than likely violates a number of existing laws, and it will be deemed illegal and shut down, but the air force if necessary. In short, it's probably a lot easier to find a "friendly" government and host a normal server in that country than it is to launch balloons that will most certainly be temporary, or "accidentally" flown into, perhaps during a "training exercise". And no, unless TPB is now a nation, it is not an "act of war".
- sbierwagen 15y ago
  Geostationary satellites are stationary over a point on the equator. You can have an inclined GEO orbit, at which point the bird describes a figure-8 ground track that's centered on the equator. Unless there's been some extremely unusual geographical developments recently that I haven't heard of, there's no way for a GEO satellite to orbit over Russia.
  - run4yourlives 15y ago
    ...and that's what I get for trying to cram in too many topics into a single sentence. You are of course correct. By "park" I wasn't intending to imply true geo-stationary orbit, rather "object not moving in relation to the ground", which would need to be done with self propulsion. Bad (and incorrect) use of the term on my part. Cheers for pointing it out.

polemic 15y ago

Weirdly - we were talking in the office last week about what it would take to get something into orbit from, for example, a rail gun. We calculated that for a 100m rail gun and a 0.5 kilogram payload you'd need to feed it about a 100 MW power source (over about a tenth of a second) to accelerate it to the necessary 7.8 km/s. That doesn't include the energy needed to get it to altitude. Naturally, if TPB could actually put something into orbit on a commercially viable basis, they could probably afford to fund their pirate service as a teeny part of the Enormous Space Freighting Corporation that would naturally to ensure... just sayin'.

kragen 15y ago
A friend of mine just mentioned http://startram.com/ http://startram.com/ to me this weekend; apparently sending something into orbit from a ground-mounted rail gun is possible in certain parts of the world. They also propose magnetically levitating the end of the railgun by a few thousand more meters for a later version that can use lower G-forces. Last year I did some calculations about mounting the railgun on a dirigible: http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen-tol/2011-August/000939.html http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen-tol/2011-August/... The usual way to power railguns (or particle accelerators) is with giant high-voltage capacitors, which can discharge their energy very quickly. I forget the term of art used for this particular kind of capacitor, unfortunately. Startram suggests using superconducting magnetic energy storage, which has apparently become practical recently; and giant homopolar generators with flywheels are another (low-voltage) alternative.

reedlaw 15y ago

They could use a commercial space transport service to send the payload into orbit. A company was offering suborbital space launches for a mere $250/kg in 2006: http://blog.makezine.com/2006/04/13/send-some-stuff-to-space/ http://blog.makezine.com/2006/04/13/send-some-stuff-to-space...

kragen 15y ago
It turns out that the "really high" part of getting things into orbit is actually considerably easier than the "really fast" part. Getting a rocket out of the atmosphere is one thing, but getting it to miss the entire Earth when it falls back down, which is what "orbit" means, is something else entirely.

run4yourlives 15y ago

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about who "owns" the airspace of a given country. The US - as do other countries - retain the exclusive right of use of their airspace at all times. ICAO and all airspace classes are not global "laws" and/or treaties that countries are bound by, they are standards that countries choose to accept. Any attempt to launch a "flying server" in "uncontrolled" airspace will be met instantly with one of the following measures by pretty much any country: 1. If it is assessed as a threat by whatever definition the government in question decides to use, and it is either in geo-stationary orbit above a country or in high altitude, it will be forcibly removed by the air force. (This is why we don't park satellites over Russia. They can and will assert their authority over their airspace and everyone will agree with them)... U2 anyone? 2. If it is low enough to be tethered to the ground, it will most likely fall under local zoning laws and/or within restricted airspace, and will be dealt with pretty damn quick as a hazard, regardless of intent. 3. If it isn't tethered to the ground and also in the middle of nowhere, its "broadcasting" more than likely violates a number of existing laws, and it will be deemed illegal and shut down, but the air force if necessary. In short, it's probably a lot easier to find a "friendly" government and host a normal server in that country than it is to launch balloons that will most certainly be temporary, or "accidentally" flown into, perhaps during a "training exercise". And no, unless TPB is now a nation, it is not an "act of war".

sbierwagen 15y ago
Geostationary satellites are stationary over a point on the equator. You can have an inclined GEO orbit, at which point the bird describes a figure-8 ground track that's centered on the equator. Unless there's been some extremely unusual geographical developments recently that I haven't heard of, there's no way for a GEO satellite to orbit over Russia.
- run4yourlives 15y ago
  ...and that's what I get for trying to cram in too many topics into a single sentence. You are of course correct. By "park" I wasn't intending to imply true geo-stationary orbit, rather "object not moving in relation to the ground", which would need to be done with self propulsion. Bad (and incorrect) use of the term on my part. Cheers for pointing it out.