Watching A Planet
Kurt Feltenberger
(25 Sep 2015 04:01 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Watching A Planet
Thomas Jones-Low
(25 Sep 2015 04:43 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Watching A Planet
Greg Nokes
(25 Sep 2015 04:54 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Watching A Planet
Kurt Feltenberger
(25 Sep 2015 23:42 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Watching A Planet
Kurt Feltenberger
(25 Sep 2015 23:41 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Watching A Planet
Edward Swatschek
(26 Sep 2015 00:45 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Watching A Planet
shadow@xxxxxx
(29 Sep 2015 18:55 UTC)
|
Re: Watching A Planet
Rob O'Connor
(26 Sep 2015 08:54 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Watching A Planet
Craig Berry
(28 Sep 2015 03:28 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Watching A Planet
Bruce Johnson
(28 Sep 2015 04:09 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Watching A Planet
Kurt Feltenberger
(29 Sep 2015 00:22 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Watching A Planet Rob O'Connor (29 Sep 2015 06:15 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Watching A Planet
Grimmund
(29 Sep 2015 13:40 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Watching A Planet
shadow@xxxxxx
(29 Sep 2015 18:55 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Watching A Planet
Grimmund
(28 Sep 2015 13:02 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Watching A Planet
Kurt Feltenberger
(29 Sep 2015 00:26 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Watching A Planet
Craig Berry
(29 Sep 2015 03:56 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Watching A Planet
Greg Chalik
(29 Sep 2015 04:08 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Watching A Planet
Jeffrey Schwartz
(29 Sep 2015 14:43 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Watching A Planet
Bruce Johnson
(29 Sep 2015 14:53 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Watching A Planet
Craig Berry
(29 Sep 2015 15:19 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Watching A Planet
Kurt Feltenberger
(29 Sep 2015 00:18 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Watching A Planet
Bruce Johnson
(29 Sep 2015 16:04 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Watching A Planet
Jeffrey Schwartz
(29 Sep 2015 16:10 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Watching A Planet
Kelly St. Clair
(29 Sep 2015 16:53 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Watching A Planet
Greg Nokes
(29 Sep 2015 18:55 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Re: Watching A Planet
Rob O'Connor
(30 Sep 2015 09:37 UTC)
|
Bruce Johnson wrote: > Also subject of interest: what does orbital space around a civilized > planet with a few thousand years of routine spaceflight look like? To start, tightly controlled out to at least 100 diameters. It's a grossly enlarged version of the air traffic control problem, with the added complications of zoning (e.g. allocating construction space, preventing orbital crowding, especially of the synchronous altitude, etc). High population worlds will be like flying into Heathrow, O'Hare or Hong Kong in terms of crowding. Everything that can be tracked in that volume will be, with a combination of surface and orbiting sensors. Note current tracking capability is ~5cm diameter at LEO and ~1m at synchronous orbit with the DoD Space Surveillance Network. ESA claims 1cm at altitudes up to 1000km. So we can improve on this with Traveller tech, at least down to diffraction limits and using wide-baseline interferometry across most of the electromagnetic spectrum. Debris will be cleared regularly as hazard mitigation. Foreign Object Debris is bad. Depending on law level, the entities responsible for the debris will also be responsible for cleanup costs. So using Earth as an example, 100 diameters is ~1.3 million km, and marks the start of the 'mainworld outer control zone'. Geosynchronous orbit is ~2.8 diameters (35900km) and marks the start of the 'inner control zone'. Beyond 100 diameters the situation is analogous to the oceans with regard to air traffic control today. Transponders must be on, and will try to announce their presence when the next planetary control zone is reached. > How hard is it to spoof a real satellite, or just put one in orbit? Hacking the ground station seems like a better spoofing strategy if you don't have access to space. Otherwise hack the satellite, especially if you can hide in a crowd of spacecraft. As you mention, gravitics make it easy for almost anyone to put stuff into orbit, pull stuff out of orbit and make ballistic missiles. Law level will determine who can put stuff into orbit/space, and their responsibilities with regard to creating navigation hazards, cleanup, etc. Rob O'Connor