[Law] Upper end of airspace?

[*Aqua*]

Hello!

I tried to find a definition where the upper end of airspace belonging to a country is.

In Germany the upper end is defined as the atmospheric height where the state can't impose authority anymore. That means the border depends on the access of a state on devices capable of reaching that height (planes, missles, etc.). Because of that no exact height number is stated.

There doesn't seem to exist an international law concerning that topic. Yes, there's the space treaty but that doesn't define at which height space begins. And it doesn't say anything about the airspace belonging to a country.

Do you know something about that? At which height does you country set the upper limit (if it does)?

[AngelLestat]

in my opinion.. space begins were your spacecraft would not fall due its speed even if it try it. So if it travels above a country, it can not do nothing to avoid that and there is not danger to fall over this country.

In case if it does.. it may disintegrate, if it does not.. then your are violating its air space.

Edited April 12, 2015 by AngelLestat

[*Aqua*]

I think your definition is weak because orbits aren't indefinitely stable. They will decay in the near or far future. Which brings us back to the question where space begins/ends and when it will concern a state.

I would like to keep the question about where space begins aside and concentrate the discussion on the end of (a state's) airspace. Both don't have to be the same (see my example about Germany).

[K^2]

There's a lot of gray area there, but the fundamental document on the topic is the Outer Space Treaty. Unfortunately, despite using the phrase nearly 40 times, the treaty never actually defines what constitutes "outer space," so interpretations vary from context to context. There is some discussion of that in the Karman Line article. For the most part, it comes down to two figures. 100km, which is roughly where centrifugal force exceeds lift for "typical" aircraft. And 150km, which is the lowest perigee a satellite can have and complete a full orbit.

So in summary, anything bellow 100km and not over international waters is somebody's airspace, and everything above 150km isn't. The 50km in between are kind of a gray area.

Whether or not an airspace is actually controlled is a separate question. In US, for example, everything above 60,000 feet is Class E airspace, which means that you don't need flight plan, ATC clearance, or any of that formal stuff that you'd need at lower flight levels. But these are still altitudes accessible to spy planes, so don't think you won't raise an alarm crossing borders at these altitudes. Come to think of it, simply climbing to 60k feet ought to put you on some sort of a watch list.

With all of these complications and hazy areas in mind, if I was building a private space ship and didn't want various hassles with scheduling launches, I'd probably go for an aircraft launch over international waters. The carrier aircraft would take off from mainland and can cross the border using standard transceiver routines. The actual space ship would then only need clearance for a fly through the Class A.

[AngelLestat]

But you can be even at 300 km without any orbit velocity, or equal to the earth rotation, this mean that you will fall and crash in the next moments, the same that any else will do even with less altitude.

Of course if nobody really define space before, or there is not consensus about that, then is open to suggestions.

In my definition (that of course it may have many loopholes) I take into account in some way what happen if re-entry by atmosphere brake over time.)

But well, who wanna try to define space without many words and loopholes?

If you wanna try to define a law, how it would be?

[Sandworm]

There is no international law because most countries have themselves internal conflicts. For example, in the US there is no law directly saying that landowners do not own the airspace above thier lands. By "airspace" I mean everything from ground to mars and beyond. The common law (ie 1000+ years old) was that you owned all of it. Then the airplane was invented ... but nobody changed the law. In the US the FAA and others do regulate use above a certain altitudes, but make no claims that they "own" that airspace.

Similarly, in the early days of the space race it was thought that any sat would be an "overflight" regardless of altitude. Many have speculated that, were it not for the lawyers putting the brakes on overflights, the US would have been first into space. Google "international geophysical year" to learn about that debate. Week governments like the US fed do not have the authority to usurp landowner's rights. So they don't speak about owning various altitudes. The treaties they sign instead speak of non-aggression, not officially complaining about overflights. (The US fed is "week" in that's its authority is limited in respect to individual states, versus countries like Canada where the national government is the be all and end all.)

In practical terms, altitude doesn't matter so much as trajectory. A sat at 1000km, but on a suborbital trajectory, would still be considered an overflight (ie DPRK lobbing things over japan). But something in orbit at 500km would be "a spacecraft".

[*Aqua*]

If you wanna try to define a law, how it would be?

Is this question for me or K^2?

If you ask me I would go along what Germany does. In a way it makes sense: If it is within your reach and you have the means to control it, you can claim it's yours. In the case of Germany the end of the state's airspace would be at about 30-40 km height (I think there are missles which can climb up there). In the case of the USA it will reach to the border of space. The USA is known to have missles which can shoot down satellites. That should be enough to prove that it (he? she?) has the means to control.

This kind of definition has the advantage that you don't have to define space or at which height planes can't fly anymore. It should suffice for the next decades.

[Nibb31]

In my definition (that of course it may have many loopholes) I take into account in some way what happen if re-entry by atmosphere brake over time.)

Your definition is overly complicated and allows two craft to be occupying the same point in space, though one would be violating airspace and the other wouldn't, just because they have different velocities. For a legal definition, that's too ambiguous. It should be about location, not speed.

But well, who wanna try to define space without many words and loopholes?

Anything flying below 100 km ASL is territorial airspace. Anything above it is in international outer space. Clear-cut and easy to understand.

It should be just like maritime law. Anything within 12 nautical miles is in territorial waters. Anything beyond is in international waters.

[John Nowak]

There doesn't seem to be any clear definition of space. They seem to be working on one:

http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/limited/c2/AC105_C2_2012_DEF_L01E.pdf

Or maybe not...

5. The view was expressed that States should continue to operate under the

current framework, which had functioned well, and that, at the present time, any

attempt to define or delimit outer space would be a theoretical and academic

exercise that could complicate existing activities and that might not be able to

anticipate future technological developments.

The Outer Space Treaty also specifies that nuclear weapons may not be placed "in orbit" without defining "orbit." I would guess an "orbit" means "periaps above lithosphere" but that doesn't seem to be backed up formally.

[cpast]

There doesn't seem to be any clear definition of space. They seem to be working on one:

http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/limited/c2/AC105_C2_2012_DEF_L01E.pdf

Or maybe not...

5. The view was expressed that States should continue to operate under the

current framework, which had functioned well, and that, at the present time, any

attempt to define or delimit outer space would be a theoretical and academic

exercise that could complicate existing activities and that might not be able to

anticipate future technological developments.

The Outer Space Treaty also specifies that nuclear weapons may not be placed "in orbit" without defining "orbit." I would guess an "orbit" means "periaps above lithosphere" but that doesn't seem to be backed up formally.

I'm not sure how important the technicalities of "in orbit" are for the OST, given that launching *suborbital* nukes has a fair chance of provoking a nuclear response. If a country tries claiming that its launch was suborbital, they're saying "Yes, we wanted our bomb to come down to Earth, and it will be doing so shortly."

[AngelLestat]

Anything flying below 100 km ASL is territorial airspace. Anything above it is in international outer space. Clear-cut and easy to understand.

It should be just like maritime law. Anything within 12 nautical miles is in territorial waters. Anything beyond is in international waters.

Yeah it may work.

[John Nowak]

I'm not sure how important the technicalities of "in orbit" are for the OST, given that launching *suborbital* nukes has a fair chance of provoking a nuclear response. If a country tries claiming that its launch was suborbital, they're saying "Yes, we wanted our bomb to come down to Earth, and it will be doing so shortly."

It was considered important enough to put into the treaty. At any rate, the impact is obvious: there are no nuclear weapons stationed in space, and we can't have an Orion.

[Nibb31]

I'm not sure how important the technicalities of "in orbit" are for the OST, given that launching *suborbital* nukes has a fair chance of provoking a nuclear response. If a country tries claiming that its launch was suborbital, they're saying "Yes, we wanted our bomb to come down to Earth, and it will be doing so shortly."

I think the wording of the treaty is something like "no weapons can be *stationed* in outer space", which rules out orbital or lunar weapon platforms but allows for ICBMs that only pass through space.

[cpast]

It was considered important enough to put into the treaty. At any rate, the impact is obvious: there are no nuclear weapons stationed in space, and we can't have an Orion.

Actually, no. They didn't put it in the treaty. Please read my post: They simply said "no nuclear weapons in orbit," with no technical definition of "in orbit," and the technicalities are irrelevant because you don't want to argue your nuclear launch was suborbital.

I think the wording of the treaty is something like "no weapons can be *stationed* in outer space", which rules out orbital or lunar weapon platforms but allows for ICBMs that only pass through space.

No, it also explicitly rules out any orbital usage whatsoever: "States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner."

[jwenting]

I think the wording of the treaty is something like "no weapons can be *stationed* in outer space", which rules out orbital or lunar weapon platforms but allows for ICBMs that only pass through space.

Correct. The militarisation of space treaty only covers weapons intended to be used in orbit. It doesn't even cover FOBS, if the Americans had pushed for it to cover FOBS the Soviets would never have signed it as they had FOBS in late development at that time (we now know, and back then no doubt it was suspected).

Brilliant Pebbles is more problematic as it is dual purpose, can be used against orbital or earth bound targets.

And it doesn't cover the development, production, and storage of weapons for use in orbit, as long as they're not deployed there. Again, the USSR would not have agreed to such a clause as they had ASAT weapons in storage already (and it is thought they had performed several orbital tests with them).

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, no. They didn't put it in the treaty. Please read my post: They simply said "no nuclear weapons in orbit," with no technical definition of "in orbit," and the technicalities are irrelevant because you don't want to argue your nuclear launch was suborbital.

Not that anyone'd seriously think about filing a formal complaint after the missiles start flying... They'd be too busy dying and retaliating.

[Nibb31]

Actually, no. They didn't put it in the treaty. Please read my post: They simply said "no nuclear weapons in orbit," with no technical definition of "in orbit," and the technicalities are irrelevant because you don't want to argue your nuclear launch was suborbital.

No, it also explicitly rules out any orbital usage whatsoever: "States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner."

Which is basically what I said. It rules out orbital and lunar weapon installations but allows *suborbital* ICBMs that are not stationed or placed in orbit.

The term "orbit" isn't defined, but its meaning is pretty clear and widely accepted.

[John Nowak]

Actually, no. They didn't put it in the treaty. Please read my post:

I don't need to; I read the treaty. Did you read my post?

[cpast]

I don't need to; I read the treaty. Did you read my post?

Yes. And you kinda do need to read a post before commenting on it. The treaty contains no technicalities about what "in orbit" means, which was what the post of yours I quoted was about. To quote you:

The Outer Space Treaty also specifies that nuclear weapons may not be placed "in orbit" without defining "orbit." I would guess an "orbit" means "periaps above lithosphere" but that doesn't seem to be backed up formally.

To quote me:

I'm not sure how important the technicalities of "in orbit" are for the OST, given that launching *suborbital* nukes has a fair chance of provoking a nuclear response.

The OST does not define "in orbit." That means it's not covering the technicalities of "in orbit." It's in a very real sense *irrelevant* what "in orbit" means, because any launch other than in orbit is going to provoke a nuclear response -- no one's going to be playing the technicalities of it. Anything that comes down will provoke a response; anything that doesn't is clearly in orbit. No one cares what the technical cutoff of "in orbit" is, because there is a powerful disincentive to launch suborbitally.

[*Aqua*]

I think the discussion goes offtopic. A nuclear war wasn't exactly what I had in mind when I started this thread.

What do you think about "international airspace" between space and the territorial airspace? I mean something analogue to international waters where you can basically do whatever you want without asking. Should there be something like that? I'm especially thinking about the sad end of Malaysia Airlines flight 17 over the Ukraine.

[Whirligig Girl]

Space starts at the Karman boundary, an area (where there is atmosphere!) that in order to get aerodynamic lift, you need to travel at the velocity for a circular orbit. It's about 100 km.

[rpayne88]

For the FAA here in the U.S, class A airspace goes up to 60000ft. Beyond that, its class E.

See: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Airspace_System

Physically speaking, there is the Carman Line. That is the point above which a wing will need to be traveling at orbital velocity to produce enough lift to remain airborne.