Airspace

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
Jeff Findley wrote:
Historically, the US and the USSR set the precedent. Specifically, the
USSR launching Sputnik and the US's reaction, or lack thereof, to the
launch. The US specifically did not object to Sputnik "over-flying the
US" because that would mean the USSR would be able to do the same when
the US launched its first satellite.

Not that either side would have had much of a way of destroying a
satellite in the early days other than lobbing a nuclear weapon at it...

True, but the US could have loudly protested the "over-flight" of its
territory by Sputnik, but it didn't.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
Fusion295 wrote:
I'm not an American, so please don't interpret this as a pretext for
starting a flame war. Couldn't the US have just launcehd a satellite into
an orbit with such an inclination that it's doesn't pass over the
airspace of USSR?

That would be hard to do unless you put it into a low inclination orbit,
as anything of over 35 degrees would pass over some part the Soviet Union
after a few orbits.

And even worse, if you try not to overfly *any* other country, I'm not sure
such an orbit even exists.

Lower lattitude orbits (e.g. due east from KSC) can overfly a lot of other
countries in Central America, South America, Africa, Asia (including China),
and Austrailia.

There really was no other rational way to handle outer space than to allow
"over-flights".

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

Jeff Findley wrote:

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...

Fusion295 wrote:

I'm not an American, so please don't interpret this as a pretext for
starting a flame war. Couldn't the US have just launcehd a satellite into
an orbit with such an inclination that it's doesn't pass over the
airspace of USSR?

That would be hard to do unless you put it into a low inclination orbit,
as anything of over 35 degrees would pass over some part the Soviet Union
after a few orbits.


And even worse, if you try not to overfly *any* other country, I'm not sure
such an orbit even exists.

Yes such orbits do exist. They are called geosychronous* orbits. You can't have
one that stays over some northern (or southern) region, but russia could launch
a satellite that stays above the Pacific, and the satellite could also go over
some parts of eastern Siberia without going over another country. And the US
could do the same going over Alaska and the Pacific. I suspect it would also be
possible to do an orbit that would go over the contiguous 48 US states, then go
around South America and come back. That would have to be a highly elliptic
geosynchronous orbit, if it is possible.

Other than that, no you can't orbit Earth without flying over at least two
countries, so you will overfly at least one foreign country.

*Not to be confused with geostationary orbits. Geosynchronous orbits can go
north and south but come back above the same points at each orbits. Geostationary
orbits are a special case of geosynchronous orbits where the orbit is circular
and the inclination is zero.

Alain Fournier

Jeff Findley wrote:
True, but the US could have loudly protested the "over-flight" of its
territory by Sputnik, but it didn't.


International Geophysical Year...everybody friends.
....and those damn commies used a _military_ rocket to launch their
satellite, unlike our peaceful civilian Vanguard...so if they can use
missiles for satellite launching, so can we.
They gave us pretty much everything we could desire politically in
regards to space usage on a silver platter.

Pat

Jeff Findley wrote:
And even worse, if you try not to overfly *any* other country, I'm not sure
such an orbit even exists.

I sure can't think of one that would make that possible.

Pat

"Alain Fournier" wrote in message
...
Jeff Findley wrote:

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...

Fusion295 wrote:

I'm not an American, so please don't interpret this as a pretext for
starting a flame war. Couldn't the US have just launcehd a satellite
into an orbit with such an inclination that it's doesn't pass over the
airspace of USSR?

That would be hard to do unless you put it into a low inclination orbit,
as anything of over 35 degrees would pass over some part the Soviet Union
after a few orbits.


And even worse, if you try not to overfly *any* other country, I'm not
sure such an orbit even exists.

Yes such orbits do exist. They are called geosychronous* orbits. You can't
have
one that stays over some northern (or southern) region, but russia could
launch
a satellite that stays above the Pacific, and the satellite could also go
over
some parts of eastern Siberia without going over another country. And the
US
could do the same going over Alaska and the Pacific. I suspect it would
also be
possible to do an orbit that would go over the contiguous 48 US states,
then go
around South America and come back. That would have to be a highly
elliptic
geosynchronous orbit, if it is possible.

True, but that's *extremely* limiting, except for things like domestic
communications satellites. I said in an earlier post that the US wanted to
eventually develop spy satellites (optical and radio), which need to overfly
the country of interest. In order to do that, they had to keep quiet about
Sputnik.

Other than that, no you can't orbit Earth without flying over at least two
countries, so you will overfly at least one foreign country.

*Not to be confused with geostationary orbits. Geosynchronous orbits can
go
north and south but come back above the same points at each orbits.
Geostationary
orbits are a special case of geosynchronous orbits where the orbit is
circular
and the inclination is zero.

I know, but a satellite trying to observe the central or eastern US which is
in such an orbit would end up over Central America or even Cuba, not very
friendly countries during the Cold War. Again, not very useful orbits.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
Jeff Findley wrote:
And even worse, if you try not to overfly *any* other country, I'm not
sure such an orbit even exists.

I sure can't think of one that would make that possible.

The only orbit which seems to fit the bill would be a geosynchronous orbit
at a longitude which puts it over international waters (e.g. over the
Pacific, Atlantic, and etc.). Useful for communications satellites, but not
at all useful for something like a spy satellite, because you're stuck in
one location (which may not be of interest) and at a very high altitude.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
Jeff Findley wrote:
True, but the US could have loudly protested the "over-flight" of its
territory by Sputnik, but it didn't.


International Geophysical Year...everybody friends.
...and those damn commies used a _military_ rocket to launch their
satellite, unlike our peaceful civilian Vanguard...so if they can use
missiles for satellite launching, so can we.
They gave us pretty much everything we could desire politically in regards
to space usage on a silver platter.

Exactly. In that situation, you keep your mouth shut and smile at your good
fortune.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

Alain Fournier wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...

Fusion295 wrote:

I'm not an American, so please don't interpret this as a pretext for
starting a flame war. Couldn't the US have just launcehd a satellite
into an orbit with such an inclination that it's doesn't pass over
the airspace of USSR?

That would be hard to do unless you put it into a low inclination
orbit, as anything of over 35 degrees would pass over some part the
Soviet Union after a few orbits.


And even worse, if you try not to overfly *any* other country, I'm not
sure such an orbit even exists.

Yes such orbits do exist. They are called geosychronous* orbits. You
can't have
one that stays over some northern (or southern) region, but russia could
launch
a satellite that stays above the Pacific, and the satellite could also
go over
some parts of eastern Siberia without going over another country.

Launching *into* a geosynchronous orbit without the *transfer orbit*
overflying any country would be a trick. Russia couldn't do it unless
they put a launch site in eastern Siberia. Japan and China might be the
only countries that could do it with their current sites, though the
launch azimuths out of China might be quite restrictive. ESA couldn't do
it because the transfer orbit would overfly Africa before reaching a
high enough altitude (and low enough speed) that the Earth rotates under
it and moves the groundtrack back over the Atlantic.

Jeff Findley wrote:

"Alain Fournier" wrote in message
...

Jeff Findley wrote:


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
rthdakotatelephone...


Fusion295 wrote:


I'm not an American, so please don't interpret this as a pretext for
starting a flame war. Couldn't the US have just launcehd a satellite
into an orbit with such an inclination that it's doesn't pass over the
airspace of USSR?

That would be hard to do unless you put it into a low inclination orbit,
as anything of over 35 degrees would pass over some part the Soviet Union
after a few orbits.


And even worse, if you try not to overfly *any* other country, I'm not
sure such an orbit even exists.

Yes such orbits do exist. They are called geosychronous* orbits. You can't
have
one that stays over some northern (or southern) region, but russia could
launch
a satellite that stays above the Pacific, and the satellite could also go
over
some parts of eastern Siberia without going over another country. And the
US
could do the same going over Alaska and the Pacific. I suspect it would
also be
possible to do an orbit that would go over the contiguous 48 US states,
then go
around South America and come back. That would have to be a highly
elliptic
geosynchronous orbit, if it is possible.


True, but that's *extremely* limiting, except for things like domestic
communications satellites. I said in an earlier post that the US wanted to
eventually develop spy satellites (optical and radio), which need to overfly
the country of interest. In order to do that, they had to keep quiet about
Sputnik.

We agree here. Well maybe it wasn't an absolute necessity, but keeping quiet
about Sputnik certainly did make things easier.

Other than that, no you can't orbit Earth without flying over at least two
countries, so you will overfly at least one foreign country.

*Not to be confused with geostationary orbits. Geosynchronous orbits can
go
north and south but come back above the same points at each orbits.
Geostationary
orbits are a special case of geosynchronous orbits where the orbit is
circular
and the inclination is zero.


I know, but a satellite trying to observe the central or eastern US which is
in such an orbit would end up over Central America or even Cuba, not very
friendly countries during the Cold War. Again, not very useful orbits.

I haven't done the computations but I think you could have an elliptical
geosynchronous orbit with perigee over central United States. At perigee
the satellite must be moving eastward. With the right orbital elements you
might be able to have it going mostly southward over the Atlantic, have
apogee south of South America. At apogee the satellite must be moving
westward. So for the northward part of the ride you could be above the
Pacific. So maybe you could have a satellite that overflies central
United States but no other country.

But I do agree that not allowing over flight of other countries would
be quite a pain.


Alain Fournier