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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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."

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...

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"?

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.