National Airspace Agreement

[Bears Armed Mission]

Splitting off from this thread, so that I can edit the opening post now that I’m taking over as lead author on the project.

I've only revised the preamble so far: New operative clauses to follow within the next few days.
Note the change of Category which, as I explained in the old thread, seems more appropriate to me.

National Airspace Agreement


Category: Free Trade

Strength: Mild



The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that member nations have the a reasonable right to claim jurisdiction over the airspace above their lands, and above any territorial waters that they are recognised by other WA legislation as controlling, for the sake of national security and public safety

Concerned that some national governments might use this jurisdiction as a way to place unfair restrictions on international trade,

Seeking to remedy this potential problem, whilst taking into account the legitimate interests of each and every state;

The World Assembly hereby

I'm actually considering setting the upper limit for national "airspace" around the 'gesoynchronous orbit' level (plus a little bit more as a safety margin), so that I can cover [most] artificial satellites at the same time as aircraft: Opinions?

[Wrapper]

OOC: Hey, good to see you taking this over. Giving EnE a co-author credit? You should.

IC: We shall keep an eye on this and offer our input when a complete draft is posted. That said, the upper limit for national airspace should be below, not above, geosynchronous orbit. All it takes is one nation at the equator to say, uh uh, no satelites in our sovereign space, and, boom goes the telecommunications industry.

[Defwa]

I'm not sure what direction this is going in yet but anything that extends a nations territorial control out into orbit is a bad idea considering how satellites work (orbiting can go over a lot of ground).

[The Dark Star Republic]

Why do you actually have to define the scope of airspace? Airspace isn't defined in RL international water in the way that territorial waters are. Dragging the discussion into the definitions of atmospheric layers is only going to completely distract from the core issue of encouraging reciprocal civil aviation recognition.

[Bears Armed Mission]

OOC: Hey, good to see you taking this over. Giving EnE a co-author credit? You should.

Yes, I already planned to do so.

That said, the upper limit for national airspace should be below, not above, geosynchronous orbit. All it takes is one nation at the equator to say, uh uh, no satelites in our sovereign space, and, boom goes the telecommunications industry.

Well, the whole point about a 'geosynchronous' orbit is that the satellite concerned remains directly above a single point (more or less) on the equator continuously instead of passing over multiple locations, so the industry would still be able to park its satellites above other nations or over international waters -- or try making that first nation a better offer -- instead. My government considers it right that a nation should have the right to decide which satellites (if any) are in "fixed" positions directly over its territories.

Why do you actually have to define the scope of airspace? Airspace isn't defined in RL international water in the way that territorial waters are.

It isn't? Oh.
Having the outer boundaries 'horizontally' match those of the nation's territories & territorial waters seemed to me to be common sense... but bearing in mind the number of NS nations whose governments sometimes appear lacking in that trait, specifcially defining the situation thus in this proposal seemed advisable to me in order to reduce the scope for international disagreements (which was actually the main basis for EnE's original draft).

Dragging the discussion into the definitions of atmospheric layers is only going to completely distract from the core issue of encouraging reciprocal civil aviation recognition.

Hoping to avoid getting dragegd into discussions about defining atmospheric layers -- and about how well nations of differing tech levels could use those layers -- was actually one of the main reasons why I took the outer limit for 'national airspace' all of the way out to a level based on the more easily [I think] defined 'geosynchronous orbit' distance.
And after all, nations in NS are probably more likely than nations in RL to have to consider foreign spacecraft passing above their territories or to consider whether spacecraft of their own will be allowed to pass over other nations without interference... aren't they?
However I remain open to further discussion on this point.

_________________________________________________________________

Having jotted down some notes last night, I suspect that when my ideas have all been typed-up it will probably be "necessary" to split this topic between two proposals, one on 'National Airspace Security' and the other on 'International Air Traffic'.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Hoping to avoid getting dragegd into discussions about defining atmospheric layers -- and about how well nations of differing tech levels could use those layers -- was actually one of the main reasons why I took the outer limit for 'national airspace' all of the way out to a level based on the more easily [I think] defined 'geosynchronous orbit' distance.
And after all, nations in NS are probably more likely than nations in RL to have to consider foreign spacecraft passing above their territories or to consider whether spacecraft of their own will be allowed to pass over other nations without interference... aren't they?
However I remain open to further discussion on this point.

Not for the first time...I don't really understand a word of what you're saying.

What I am saying is that, given the WA does not have an Outer Space Treaty and seems extremely unlikely to pass one, you don't really need to worry about the "vertical" aspect. Nations can determine for themselves what constitutes airspace, and what merely space. All you need to define is the "horizontal" aspect, that is that nations have the right to all airspace directly above their land and sea borders.

You might also want to add something facilitating air travel between different parts of non-contiguous nationstates.

[Elke and Elba]

Hoping to avoid getting dragegd into discussions about defining atmospheric layers -- and about how well nations of differing tech levels could use those layers -- was actually one of the main reasons why I took the outer limit for 'national airspace' all of the way out to a level based on the more easily [I think] defined 'geosynchronous orbit' distance.
And after all, nations in NS are probably more likely than nations in RL to have to consider foreign spacecraft passing above their territories or to consider whether spacecraft of their own will be allowed to pass over other nations without interference... aren't they?
However I remain open to further discussion on this point.

Not for the first time...I don't really understand a word of what you're saying.

What I am saying is that, given the WA does not have an Outer Space Treaty and seems extremely unlikely to pass one, you don't really need to worry about the "vertical" aspect. Nations can determine for themselves what constitutes airspace, and what merely space. All you need to define is the "horizontal" aspect, that is that nations have the right to all airspace directly above their land and sea borders.

You might also want to add something facilitating air travel between different parts of non-contiguous nationstates.

On the contrary, a definition vertically might be necessary to garner votes from both the MT and FT nations (and the PMT in between as well as FanT) - since a FT nation would probably not likely arbitrary standards to be placed as airspace can be said to be defined vertically a million light years away - which would defeat the entire point of having an agreement in the first place. Similarly, the cordoning off of the vertical aspect also allows for free reign in the outer space (as you said, there probably won't be an Outer Space Treaty) - and make FT nations more likely to accept any form of agreement the Urrsish delegate would wish to pursue.

[The Dark Star Republic]

since a FT nation would probably not likely arbitrary standards to be placed as airspace can be said to be defined vertically a million light years away

No one would acknowledge such a ludicrous claim. The WA doesn't need to waste its time preventing nations from doing things that they wouldn't be able to do anyway.

and make FT nations more likely to accept any form of agreement the Urrsish delegate would wish to pursue.

The nations that will decide whether this passes or not barely even acknowledge the existence of FT.

[Defwa]

Well, the whole point about a 'geosynchronous' orbit is that the satellite concerned remains directly above a single point (more or less) on the equator continuously instead of passing over multiple locations, so the industry would still be able to park its satellites above other nations or over international waters -- or try making that first nation a better offer -- instead. My government considers it right that a nation should have the right to decide which satellites (if any) are in "fixed" positions directly over its territories.

You would give equatorial nations an oligopoly on communications then. Geosynchonous orbit cannot be achieved on a non equatorial orbit. The vast majority of these satellites have absolutely no impact to the country below. And if we're going to talk about that, what about the satellites that rotate around the planet twenty times a day, passing over different countries with each orbit and usually only momentarily. You'd basically have to arrange a transit contract with every single nation in the world if that orbit were considered trespassing.

I think you can get around the issue of discussing varying levels of atmosphere and arbitrary number if you assign the limit of airspace to the point where stable unpowered orbit becomes possible. Anything below that, a vessel can relatively easily turn and avoid things. Anything above the orbital level, it becomes impossible to control with such finesse.

[Wrapper]

All OOC: Okay, airspace is just that, the space that contains air, where planes or balloons may fly. It should not include what's beyond the stratosphere.

If this were the real world, the best place to draw the line is somewhere in the mesosphere -- about 50-80 km in altitude. This is above the approx. 40 km height that manned balloons and jets can currently reach without rocket power, and below the lowest possible low-earth orbit, approx. 160 km. What the corresponding numbers would be in the NS universe... no idea. Don't even know if one would use terminology like "mesosphere" when refering to other life-sustaining planets.

Remember, too, that not all low-earth orbit satellites are geosynchronous (e.g. space stations, manned capsules). It doesn't make sense to allow nations to claim the "air"space at that level.

[Imperializt Russia]

Hoping to avoid getting dragegd into discussions about defining atmospheric layers -- and about how well nations of differing tech levels could use those layers -- was actually one of the main reasons why I took the outer limit for 'national airspace' all of the way out to a level based on the more easily [I think] defined 'geosynchronous orbit' distance.
And after all, nations in NS are probably more likely than nations in RL to have to consider foreign spacecraft passing above their territories or to consider whether spacecraft of their own will be allowed to pass over other nations without interference... aren't they?
However I remain open to further discussion on this point.

Not for the first time...I don't really understand a word of what you're saying.

What I am saying is that, given the WA does not have an Outer Space Treaty and seems extremely unlikely to pass one, you don't really need to worry about the "vertical" aspect. Nations can determine for themselves what constitutes airspace, and what merely space. All you need to define is the "horizontal" aspect, that is that nations have the right to all airspace directly above their land and sea borders.

You might also want to add something facilitating air travel between different parts of non-contiguous nationstates.

A nation can presumably say "remove X satellite from orbit over my country", or "watch your object's orbits, we're making a space/missile/fun launch on this date, but I think it would be wholly unreasonable to grant nations exclusive rights to the space over their territories. It's not like with air travel where you can simply alter course, orbit trajectories are very complex to plan, and need to be plotted to achieve various goals.

[Imperializt Russia]

All OOC: Okay, airspace is just that, the space that contains air, where planes or balloons may fly. It should not include what's beyond the stratosphere.

If this were the real world, the best place to draw the line is somewhere in the mesosphere -- about 50-80 km in altitude. This is above the approx. 40 km height that manned balloons and jets can currently reach without rocket power, and below the lowest possible low-earth orbit, approx. 160 km. What the corresponding numbers would be in the NS universe... no idea. Don't even know if one would use terminology like "mesosphere" when refering to other life-sustaining planets.

Remember, too, that not all low-earth orbit satellites are geosynchronous (e.g. space stations, manned capsules). It doesn't make sense to allow nations to claim the "air"space at that level.

If we call it the mid-way point to an equivalent of "Low-Earth Orbit", that could be calculated in theory for a celestial body of known size and mass, I assume.

[Defwa]

All OOC: Okay, airspace is just that, the space that contains air, where planes or balloons may fly. It should not include what's beyond the stratosphere.

If this were the real world, the best place to draw the line is somewhere in the mesosphere -- about 50-80 km in altitude. This is above the approx. 40 km height that manned balloons and jets can currently reach without rocket power, and below the lowest possible low-earth orbit, approx. 160 km. What the corresponding numbers would be in the NS universe... no idea. Don't even know if one would use terminology like "mesosphere" when refering to other life-sustaining planets.

Remember, too, that not all low-earth orbit satellites are geosynchronous (e.g. space stations, manned capsules). It doesn't make sense to allow nations to claim the "air"space at that level.

If we call it the mid-way point to an equivalent of "Low-Earth Orbit", that could be calculated in theory for a celestial body of known size and mass, I assume.

Low earth orbit is just the point where air resistance becomes small enough that an object at that altitude can orbit unpowered without being slowed down enough to crash into the planet in a short period. Mind you, they're not perfect orbits- just like many LEO space stations (OOC: IRL: ISS) around the world today will eventually crash down unless someone pushes them further out because they are still being acted on by air particles in the extreme upper atmosphere.
But a planet with no atmosphere doesn't have such a thing. You can have an orbit of five meters if the body is uniformly shaped.

Either way, its not going to be something we can consistently put a halfway point on because of the different ways an atmosphere can interfere with an orbit. Halfway on some planets may be where airlines regularly operate. It all depends on how and where the atmosphere actually ends.

OOC: I'm a huge Kerbal Space Program and thanks to that game I can talk all day about orbits and how they work.

[Imperializt Russia]

All orbits will eventually degrade, IIRC. The moon's orbit is hideously complex which has the net result of increasing distance, but the moon does weigh some billion trillion tonnes. I'm not certain the effect is caused solely by or significantly by atmospheric issues though I claim no knowledge in this field.

[Defwa]

All orbits will eventually degrade, IIRC. The moon's orbit is hideously complex which has the net result of increasing distance, but the moon does weigh some billion trillion tonnes. I'm not certain the effect is caused solely by or significantly by atmospheric issues though I claim no knowledge in this field.

Well it can be a lot of things. Gravitational variations from the planets variable crust density orplanets multiple AU away, electromagnetic disturbances, space dust.
The biggest effect that we run into in our regular satellite networks is going to be the atmosphere, though and an orbit outside of that zone is going to last hundreds of years under regular circumstances.

In the case of the moon and planets, they're getting these effects from all sides and it more or less balances out for multiple billions of years.

[Chester Pearson]

All orbits will eventually degrade, IIRC. The moon's orbit is hideously complex which has the net result of increasing distance, but the moon does weigh some billion trillion tonnes. I'm not certain the effect is caused solely by or significantly by atmospheric issues though I claim no knowledge in this field.

The Moons orbit is being affected by torque. As for all orbits degrading? Geosynchronous orbit is a stable orbit, and will not degrade unless outside influence on the object is applied....

[Defwa]

All orbits will eventually degrade, IIRC. The moon's orbit is hideously complex which has the net result of increasing distance, but the moon does weigh some billion trillion tonnes. I'm not certain the effect is caused solely by or significantly by atmospheric issues though I claim no knowledge in this field.

The Moons orbit is being affected by torque. As for all orbits degrading? Geosynchronous orbit is a stable orbit, and will not degrade unless outside influence on the object is applied....

Like those found in nature
OOC: Sorry, have to be a stickler but basically yes. Hundreds of years before the orbit stops being geosynchronous, maybe thousands before it degrades enough to fall into the planet.

[Bears Armed Mission]

OOC: Quick post, becasue I need to get some other stuff done... will add more here, later on.

I was planning to have the proposal treat non-military satellites in non-geosynchronous orbits in basically the same way that it would non-military air traffic: Free passge, subject to some basic safety rules (which for satellites basically => if you're launching a satellite that uses some form of nuclear power then other member nations can insist that its flight path -- and thus its likely path of eventual descent -- must not pass over their territories...) and excluding acts of war . 'Spy satelites' are an wakward case, though: I'll probably resort simply to not mentioning them in any more detail, so that it isn't illegal under WA law to send them over another nation but it also isn't illegal (or an act of war) under WA law for that other country to shoot them down either.

[Imperializt Russia]

This essentially means that satellites which use either a miniaturised reactor or radiometric battery (which IIRC is rather a lot in the case of the latter) cannot have an orbit which takes them over land - which, as I suggested earlier, may not be possible, without maintaining some sort of geosynchronous orbit over the ocean.
KSPers, feel free to correct me or otherwise on this.

Even if it does come down, it'll most likely streak across the sky, rather than just "drop", for a variety of reasons in orbital mechanics. Until it actually comes down, there may be no reasonable way of plotting its descent (unless planned - in which case, obviously, you know when and where it's coming down) and telling where it might impact.

Additionally, a reactor small enough to launch (by RL standards, NS probably has GWe-grade space stations and orbital weapon batteries) will probably contain very little material. The Russian Kosmos 934 satellite which crashed in Canada in 1978 carried a reactor and scattered material over Canada. Russia paid about $6mn for a cleanup operation (this is from a FAQ - it doesn't suggest where USD or Canadian dollars, today's money or 1978 value or the area covered - according to wiki, Russia actually paid only C$3mn, and the bill was both expenses spent and future incidentals). Few fragments were found, but some were highly dangerous, owing to the 50kg of fissile material aboard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954#Recovery

Kosmos 954 led to the inclusion of redundant reactor ejection mechanisms (which had failed on 954, 1402 and at least one intervening launch - the reactors are designed to be ejected at the end of the satellite's useful life or in emergency).
So, I suppose what could instead be done is to throw in a clause, length permitting, amounting to a cut-down version of RL's Space Liability Convention, and setting basic requirements for nuclear satellites - ie, multiple redundant fissile ejection mechanisms for safety reasons.

[Defwa]

This essentially means that satellites which use either a miniaturised reactor or radiometric battery (which IIRC is rather a lot in the case of the latter) cannot have an orbit which takes them over land - which, as I suggested earlier, may not be possible, without maintaining some sort of geosynchronous orbit over the ocean.
KSPers, feel free to correct me or otherwise on this.

Even if it does come down, it'll most likely streak across the sky, rather than just "drop", for a variety of reasons in orbital mechanics. Until it actually comes down, there may be no reasonable way of plotting its descent (unless planned - in which case, obviously, you know when and where it's coming down) and telling where it might impact.

Additionally, a reactor small enough to launch (by RL standards, NS probably has GWe-grade space stations and orbital weapon batteries) will probably contain very little material. The Russian Kosmos 934 satellite which crashed in Canada in 1978 carried a reactor and scattered material over Canada. Russia paid about $6mn for a cleanup operation (this is from a FAQ - it doesn't suggest where USD or Canadian dollars, today's money or 1978 value or the area covered - according to wiki, Russia actually paid only C$3mn, and the bill was both expenses spent and future incidentals). Few fragments were found, but some were highly dangerous, owing to the 50kg of fissile material aboard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954#Recovery

Kosmos 954 led to the inclusion of redundant reactor ejection mechanisms (which had failed on 954, 1402 and at least one intervening launch - the reactors are designed to be ejected at the end of the satellite's useful life or in emergency).
So, I suppose what could instead be done is to throw in a clause, length permitting, amounting to a cut-down version of RL's Space Liability Convention, and setting basic requirements for nuclear satellites - ie, multiple redundant fissile ejection mechanisms for safety reasons.

No, you're right. And to require those sort of maneuvers, you're increasing the cost of orbital satellites a thousand fold. If disposal is the problem, a space treaty can handle that but you can't legislate on planes and satellites in the same fashion.

[Bears Armed]

Okay, so satellites probably go into yet another proposal instead: That's three...

[The Dark Star Republic]

This is all getting increasingly ambitious, but perhaps you could concentrate on the original issue, of recognising national sovereignty over airspace, and then branch off into alternate proposals later on if needed. It's difficult to comment on pure hypotheticals.

[Elke and Elba]

Okay, so satellites probably go into yet another proposal instead: That's three...

Enough motivation for me to read up on my Gravitation...

This is all getting increasingly ambitious, but perhaps you could concentrate on the original issue, of recognising national sovereignty over airspace, and then branch off into alternate proposals later on if needed. It's difficult to comment on pure hypotheticals.

Indeed, indeed.

But I'm pretty piqued by the scope of the three proposals ^_^

[Cenetra]

Splitting off from this thread, so that I can edit the opening post now that I’m taking over as lead author on the project.

I've only revised the preamble so far: New operative clauses to follow within the next few days.
Note the change of Category which, as I explained in the old thread, seems more appropriate to me.

National Airspace Agreement


Category: Free Trade

Strength: Mild



The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that member nations have the a reasonable right to claim jurisdiction over the airspace above their lands, and above any territorial waters that they are recognised by other WA legislation as controlling, for the sake of national security and public safety

Concerned that some national governments might use this jurisdiction as a way to place unfair restrictions on international trade,

Seeking to remedy this potential problem, whilst taking into account the legitimate interests of each and every state;

The World Assembly hereby

I'm actually considering setting the upper limit for national "airspace" around the 'gesoynchronous orbit' level (plus a little bit more as a safety margin), so that I can cover [most] artificial satellites at the same time as aircraft: Opinions?

The only time I would consider subjecting artificial satellites to "airspace" restrictions is when a terrestrial body is under the exclusive jurisdiction of one nation, in which case I would extend it out to either the edge of that body's stable orbit, or to the periapse distance of the nearest satellite body not under the control of said nation. However, this is a little iffy with the "reasonable nations" clause.

The problem with satellites is that the vast majority of the time, avoiding overflight of a given nation is impossible. When routing an airplane flight, you can simply go around controlled airspace. With a satellite, unless the satellite's orbital period is a rational multiple of the parent body's rotational period (e.g. 1:1 for geosynchronous satellites, 1:2 for semisynchronous satellites), its ground track will at some point overfly every point at a latitude lower than that satellite's orbital inclination. Even for a satellite with a regular, repeating ground track, avoiding overflight may be impractical, and certainly cannot be done after launch without excessive fuel use.

100 km is a good altitude to demarcate "space" for Earth, but given that in NS there could be non-earthlike planets involved, I would suggest defining the upper limit of airspace as:
"The minimum altitude at which a non-rotating spherical object with a diameter of one meter and a mass of 1,000 kg will, if released into an circular, prograde equatorial orbit, complete a full revolution without impacting the ground."

The biggest gray area is suborbital spaceflight, i.e. something flying over your territory above the Karman line, but on a trajectory where it will fall back to the ground without a change in velocity (aka engines firing). This would encompass orbital spacecraft during launch and reentry, as well as point-to-point suborbital flights. For that, I would recommend only applying airspace regulations if an object's keplerian trajectory (i.e. where it will go with no drag, lift, or engines) would take it below the Karman line on a nation's territory. Applied to different scenarios:

A Cenetran spacecraft is on a reentry trajectory which intersects the ground east of Cenetra (but actually lands in Cenetra accounting for atmospheric drag), and overflies your nation, which is thousands of miles west across an ocean. However, this overflight is above the Karman Line. This flight is not subject to your airspace control, since although the spacecraft overflies you on a suborbital trajectory, it doesn't go below the Karman Line above your territory. It isn't subject to the airspace control of the nation to Cenetra's east either, because although the hypothetical trajectory goes below the Karman Line above their territory, in reality no overflight ever occurs.

Cenetra launches a satellite from an island in the middle of the ocean, west of your country. The flight profile drops the first stage into international waters with no overflight, and the second stage is above the Karman Line by the time it flies over your border. However, if at some point during the overflight the rocket's engine fails, it will crash-land in your territory. This flight is subject to your airspace control, because it overflies your territory and at some point during the overflight is on a trajectory that would intersect the ground on your territory. There is also a third country farther east which would be hit if the rocket fails somewhat later in the flight, and will be overflown during a normal launch. However, by the time the overflight occurs in a normal launch, the rocket is already in orbit. The flight is not subject to the third country's airspace control, but if the rocket crashes there, either the Cenetran Government or the company that launched the rocket will be legally responsible for any damages.

A suborbital airliner flies between your country and Cenetra, overflying a third country along the way. The overflight occurs above the Karman Line, and the vehicle's trajectory does not intersect the ground in the third country. This flight is not subject to the third country's airspace controls.

[Bears Armed]

OOC; My thanks to the people commenting. I am still reading this thread, and still intend to continue with the project, it's just that a combination of RL factors and other NS factors (especially the latest attempt by the Bears' national football team at qualifying for the World Cup again) have got in the way...