"But should a nation like China decide it doesn't want uncensored Internet streaming to its shores from space, there's nothing really stopping it from blasting the satellites out of the sky either."
After the recent events, I wouldn't be completely surprised if the US decided to claim them to be "a threat to national security" (which translates to enabling copyright infringement) as well, in a not too distant future. It may sound too extreme today, but so did SOPA ten years ago.
If you mean that it is possible to "blast satellites out of space", then yes, it is true. China used it on one of their own satellites to test with, and considering other nations were not informed, the US-government was outraged.
> if you mean that it is possible to "blast satellites out of space", then yes, it is true
No I meant the story about the hackers. No doubt about it that the nations could (and would) blast their satellites out of space. I wonder how these hackers can be so stupid to even think about such a crazy idea.
The cost per kg currently around $10k, about half what it cost on the shuttle. If you assume a payload mass fraction of 2% and a vehicle mass fraction of 10%, you have a fuel-to-weight ratio of 44:1. So, it takes--switching to English units because milk is in gallons--44 pounds of fuel to launch 1 pound into orbit on current launch vehicles. Fuel is roughly as dense as water and roughly the same cost as milk. So, about 6 gallons of fuel at $3.50/gallon. $21 in fuel for 1 lb of payload, then.
How do you solve this problem? You work on the difference in engineering cost between $21/lb and $5k/lb, say by simplifying systems, building them more robustly so the $30k paper trail that guarantees that the otherwise $700 part will perform exactly as advertised goes away, or aiming for reusability.
Of course, if you did that on a large enough scale, you'd be Elon Musk.
I always thought that a parallel-independent-underground network is inevitable and if it's achieved succesfully I think the ramifications could be huge, it could be the first step towards seriously thinking about the posibility of leaving Earth and start to colonize the space, if you can have a reliable network out of a DIY space program, I can't think why in 100 years they wouldn't start a colony outside to basically move further away from the rules of goverments on Earth.
The CS team circumvented the launch area problem by going out in international sea. Getting permission to launch on land was just too much work.
To make it just a bit more awesome, they use a home build submarine to transport the rocket to the launch area.
You should inform your local air traffic control and get airspace clearance for the launch. You should probably do it very publically as well otherwise some slightly paranoid nations may take it as a threat.
You probably don't want to bother unless you are near the equator though (less energy is required to launch from there). You also want to launch when air density is at a minimum if possible.
From a practicality POV, most space launch vehicles are very over-engineered. It's cheaper to lose a few cheaper ones than to build better quality ones (unless they have a live payload) so there are logistics to consider as well.
I am very curious as to how much truth there is behind the statement "unregulated nature of space" and especially curious, if true, how long it will be before governments start attempting to
For all it worth, right now most anti-satellite weapons are limited to low earth orbit (useful for knocking out satellites looking at stuff you don't want). Most communications satellites will be a much higher altitude.
While there is no fundamental reason why governments couldn't create ASAT weapons to reach higher altitudes, the costs go on significantly. Previous (like cold war era) attempts at high altitude weapons pretty much just strapped a big nuke to a full out launch vehicle. For reference, the weapon used by the US in their ASAT kill in 2006 was made using a modified ballistic defense missile (the SM-3). Your Aegis equipped warships can carry a -lot- of them.
Anyhow, it'd be far easier for governments to attempt to regulate the receivers and transmitters than to shoot down the satellite. Also, it would be easier for them to deny launch privileges than wait till after they launch. They might not own space, but they own their airspace.
I'm not familiar with the area but aren't anti-satellite weapons forbidden under certain treaties, similar to how nuclear weapons in space are banned? The US spun their test as preventing damage from a bad satellite and the Chinese said something similar.
Nope. The Outer Space Treaty forbids many things, but does not forbid anti-satellite weapons, especially if those weapons are not based on orbit. In fact, the Outer Space Treaty does not even forbid conventional weapons in orbit. It basically only bans WMDs in space, and forbids military use of other celestial bodies (nothing about space itself).
Anti-satellite weapons were largely held in check by technical issues, cost, as well as avoiding escalation/arms race. The recent weapons test are an example of that. Once you start actively developing these weapons again, everyone else who can will follow to protect their interests. Both of their spins are largely for PR, not legal/treaty reasons.
The other thing that has put a brake on too much ASAT exuberance is the large amount of long-lived debris that kinetic ASAT kills create. It wouldn't take many kinetic ASAT shots before LEO was entirely unuseable for years to come, an outcome which (so far) has been sobering for all concerned.
Wow, that's really interesting. It's also kind of frightening as well. I wonder if in the future Kessler Syndrome will be considered a viable doomsday-like scenario.
Good luck guys!