|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
19,000-pound space lab falling "uncontrolled" back to Earth
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...cid=spartanntp
Any one has falling satellite home owners insurance? (o: |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
19,000-pound space lab falling "uncontrolled" back to Earth
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 03:14:21 -0800 (PST), StarDust
wrote: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...cid=spartanntp Any one has falling satellite home owners insurance? (o: If you have a conventional homeowners policy in the U.S., you are probably already covered for damage from meteorites, space debris, and other falling objects. In any case, however, China is a signatory to the 1972 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, which means they are liable for any damage the body might cause when it reenters. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
19,000-pound space lab falling "uncontrolled" back to Earth
On Thursday, 4 January 2018 10:00:37 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 03:14:21 -0800 (PST), StarDust wrote: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...cid=spartanntp Any one has falling satellite home owners insurance? (o: If you have a conventional homeowners policy in the U.S., you are probably already covered for damage from meteorites, space debris, and other falling objects. In any case, however, China is a signatory to the 1972 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, which means they are liable for any damage the body might cause when it reenters. Good luck getting it from them. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
19,000-pound space lab falling "uncontrolled" back to Earth
That's 8,600 kg for those of you not living in a major backward
country!!!!!!!!! "RichA" wrote in message ... On Thursday, 4 January 2018 10:00:37 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 03:14:21 -0800 (PST), StarDust wrote: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...cid=spartanntp Any one has falling satellite home owners insurance? (o: If you have a conventional homeowners policy in the U.S., you are probably already covered for damage from meteorites, space debris, and other falling objects. In any case, however, China is a signatory to the 1972 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, which means they are liable for any damage the body might cause when it reenters. Good luck getting it from them. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
19,000-pound space lab falling "uncontrolled" back to Earth
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 08:33:10 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote: On Thursday, 4 January 2018 10:00:37 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 03:14:21 -0800 (PST), StarDust wrote: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...cid=spartanntp Any one has falling satellite home owners insurance? (o: If you have a conventional homeowners policy in the U.S., you are probably already covered for damage from meteorites, space debris, and other falling objects. In any case, however, China is a signatory to the 1972 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, which means they are liable for any damage the body might cause when it reenters. Good luck getting it from them. I imagine they'd pay very, very quickly without any argument. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
19,000-pound space lab falling "uncontrolled" back to Earth
On Friday, 5 January 2018 02:59:42 UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 08:33:10 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: On Thursday, 4 January 2018 10:00:37 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 03:14:21 -0800 (PST), StarDust wrote: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...cid=spartanntp Any one has falling satellite home owners insurance? (o: If you have a conventional homeowners policy in the U.S., you are probably already covered for damage from meteorites, space debris, and other falling objects. In any case, however, China is a signatory to the 1972 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, which means they are liable for any damage the body might cause when it reenters. Good luck getting it from them. I imagine they'd pay very, very quickly without any argument. Thre's a wonderful irony that nations can send anything they like up there but you need a license to fly a drone weighing a bare few grams. I guarantee that overflying trespass does not figure in any plans to put commuters into flying cars. Nor Amazon, et al, sending bottled water, by drone, to the pathologically lazy with far too much money and zero common sense. Why does an aircraft, space station or helicopter have free reign to irritate billions? While a motorcyclist, or car owner, can be pulled over for having a noisy exhaust. With a mandatory death sentence, for some in the USA, for having a dim light bulb. A foil hat is the perfect defense from falling space stations. It has never knowingly failed to protect the owner from "all risks." |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
19,000-pound space lab falling "uncontrolled" back to Earth
On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 11:23:45 PM UTC-8, Chris.B wrote:
On Friday, 5 January 2018 02:59:42 UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 08:33:10 -0800 (PST), wrote: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...cid=spartanntp Any one has falling satellite home owners insurance? (o: If you have a conventional homeowners policy in the U.S., you are probably already covered for damage from meteorites, space debris, and other falling objects. In any case, however, China is a signatory to the 1972 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, which means they are liable for any damage the body might cause when it reenters. Good luck getting it from them. I imagine they'd pay very, very quickly without any argument. Thre's a wonderful irony that nations can send anything they like up there but you need a license to fly a drone weighing a bare few grams. I think, after a certain weight (1LB+ ?) you need license to fly drone, only allowed to fly 400 feet high max., 5 miles from any airport! Space above you is not free. often owned by nations or companies. Sending up a satellite for exmpl. above Columbia, a Co. may have to pay renting fee for that space. I guarantee that overflying trespass does not figure in any plans to put commuters into flying cars. Nor Amazon, et al, sending bottled water, by drone, to the pathologically lazy with far too much money and zero common sense. Why does an aircraft, space station or helicopter have free reign to irritate billions? While a motorcyclist, or car owner, can be pulled over for having a noisy exhaust. With a mandatory death sentence, for some in the USA, for having a dim light bulb. A foil hat is the perfect defense from falling space stations. It has never knowingly failed to protect the owner from "all risks." |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
19,000-pound space lab falling "uncontrolled" back to Earth
On Thursday, 4 January 2018 20:59:42 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 08:33:10 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: On Thursday, 4 January 2018 10:00:37 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 03:14:21 -0800 (PST), StarDust wrote: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...cid=spartanntp Any one has falling satellite home owners insurance? (o: If you have a conventional homeowners policy in the U.S., you are probably already covered for damage from meteorites, space debris, and other falling objects. In any case, however, China is a signatory to the 1972 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, which means they are liable for any damage the body might cause when it reenters. Good luck getting it from them. I imagine they'd pay very, very quickly without any argument. Sure. and China is on the "vanguard" of mitigating CO2 production (according to the apologist greenie left-wingers in the West) but continues to build coal plants... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
19,000-pound space lab falling "uncontrolled" back to Earth
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 07:06:39 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote: I imagine they'd pay very, very quickly without any argument. Sure. and China is on the "vanguard" of mitigating CO2 production (according to the apologist greenie left-wingers in the West) but continues to build coal plants... Wow. Can you say "non sequitur"? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
19,000-pound space lab falling "uncontrolled" back to Earth
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 23:23:42 -0800 (PST), "Chris.B"
wrote: Thre's a wonderful irony that nations can send anything they like up there but you need a license to fly a drone weighing a bare few grams. In the U.S. (outside some specific jurisdictions) you don't need a license to operate a recreational drone of fairly low mass that is always in your line of sight. There have been efforts to require that, but they aren't holding up yet. That said, nobody has been hurt by falling space debris. No property has been damaged. But quite a few people have been injured by badly controlled drones. Some degree of regulation of the latter is reasonable. And all the countries which fly spacecraft have agreed to be responsible for any damage they ultimately cause on the ground. Why does an aircraft, space station or helicopter have free reign to irritate billions? While a motorcyclist, or car owner, can be pulled over for having a noisy exhaust. Does a space station really irritate billions? Aircraft and helicopters are generally seen as providing benefits that outweigh the irritation of the noise they produce, and the amount of noise is generally managed as best possible. A vehicle with noisy exhaust is malfunctioning, not operating normally. It is MORE irritating than it needs to be, so is reasonably controlled. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
just THREE YEARS AFTER my "CREWLESS Space Shuttle" article, theNSF """experts""" discover the idea of an unmanned Shuttle to fill the2010-2016 cargo-to-ISS (six+ years) GAP | gaetanomarano | Policy | 3 | September 15th 08 04:47 PM |
the (NSF's Direct-like) new-uplink.forum's "experts" STRIKE BACK(now with "their" ARES-H) | gaetanomarano | Policy | 11 | August 27th 08 02:11 AM |
"VideO Madness" "WhO did yOu VOte fOr, back in the day?!?!?!..." | Colonel Jake TM | Misc | 0 | August 31st 06 05:03 PM |
Any SPACE where a PARTiCLE is, is DiSCRETE; [Whether it's "falling" or, NOT falling.!!] ```Brian. | brian a m stuckless | Policy | 0 | January 11th 06 06:38 PM |
Any SPACE where a PARTiCLE is, is DiSCRETE; [Whether it's "falling" or, NOT falling.!!] ```Brian. | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 11th 06 06:38 PM |