Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!ames!al
From: al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: "Shadowing" geosync satellites
Message-ID: <1304@ames.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 30-Dec-85 20:38:13 EST
Article-I.D.: ames.1304
Posted: Mon Dec 30 20:38:13 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Jan-86 04:29:54 EST
References: <441@brl-tgr.ARPA> <456@ihlpl.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 17

> I would think that a space station would also be in geosync orbit?
> 
> If a space station is  NOT in geosync orbit, I think that a larger
> problem would come when it entered Soviet airspace.
> -- 

With Sputnik, the Soviet's established a tradition that spacecraft may
overfly national territories.  'Airspace' therefor ends at some undefined
altitude.  National control, of course, is limited by physical ability.  If
you can't destroy it, you can't control it.  Since the ability to destroy
satellites was non-existant in the late 50s and is very limited now, territorial
control does not extend to space craft.  If ASAT's become common, this could
easily change - a fact those who support ASAT's and like (politically) free
access to space should consider.  For example, when the equitorial countries
tried to claim control over geosynchronous satellites they failed.  If they
had access to ASAT's capable of reaching communication satellites the
results might well have been quite different.