Hacker News Reader

I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing against here. The blocker for this launch was an FAA license, because the Federal Aviation Administration regulates what flies in the atmosphere, up to 30km or so (the highest aircraft can fly). There's no way to get to space without traversing this zone, but once you're up there, the universe is your oyster.

I know this is a dumb comment, but I am entertained by the idea of some entity enjoying eating the universe like I would enjoy eating an oyster.

>What supernatural being descended on earth and gave governments the supreme right to own the path from earth into space.

This is a higher subset of

“God created men, Col. Colt made them equal,”

And that is, governments have the supreme authority of violence, and if you would like to do anything about it, at the end of the day you have to keep violence open as an option.

So, in theory, yes you could launch from the middle of the ocean if you wanted. But I suspect at the end of the day you having both the ability to potentially put weapons in space, and the lack of your own military to defend your sovereignty means you'll get offed by a hostile government first chance they get. That or if you travel anywhere you'll be abducted by the US and put in prison forever.

> At a micro level it would be like having to get permission for me to drive to the beach.

Note that you do have to get permission from the government to drive (to the beach). You need:

* A driving licence

* A registered and insured car

Roads are a shared space so regulations about how people use them help the common good. Noise and hazards presented by cars affect everyone so there is regulation about exhaust mufflers and pedestrian safety features. Uncontrolled driving would result in crashes so we have traffic lights, roundabouts etc.

These are all the same considerations with rockets - is it safez is it going to affect the surrounding area, is it going to conflict with other air users.

You misunderstood what I said. Once the regulatory requirements are out of the way (license & insurance) you don’t have to wait for permission every time you need to drive from point A to point B. That’s what I said.

If every time you were driving a new experimental vehicle, you'd need permission.

Similar to just driving your well tested car to the beach, SpaceX doesn't have to go through anywhere near as annoying of a process to launch F9 every 4 days.

If you were driving a new car each time you left the house, you would.

For the same reason you're not allowed to fly a drone or a plane above a specific altitude without telling your countries watchdog.

And yes, but if your launch disturb a commercial plane flight, you might have issues anyway.

>supernatural being

Humanity, itself alone, made this decision. Its the same fundamental postulate that gives governments the 'right' to invade and destroy other governments' people - without the people involved making the decision, no rockets get built in the first place.

Permission? You only need permission because you also need help - from the rest of the people who make life, as it is on Earth for humankind, what it is.

> What body of law allows government to prevent a private company from using the atmosphere to get to space?

U.S. Code, specifically Title 51, Subtitle V, Chapter 509, also known as the Commercial Space Launch Act.

> OK, so, if you could launch from a ship in the middle of the ocean you would be free to launch as you wish? Is that the case?

If you are a U.S. citizen, you are required to comply with FAA regulations and obtain the necessary licenses for commercial space launches. This is in line with the Outer Space Treaty, which places responsibility for space activities on the country of origin, regardless of where those activities actually take place.

> The difference is, that scenario is about traffic control and not about having to get permission to travel.

If your analogy is ATC, getting permission to takeoff/land your plane in controlled airspace _is part of_ said traffic control - there are simply much fewer factors that need considering for planes (compared to orbital rockets) so that permission can usually be given fairly quickly without much coordination. As the pace of commercial launches increases (and experimental rockets turn into proven designs) you should expect it to become a more routine exercise.

The reason is unlimited freedom in its most extreme form. Everyone is free to try anything, including things that are logically or physically impossible. The caveat is that everyone else has the same freedom.

If you try to drive to the beach but other people stop you and put you in prison, it happens because other people choose to exercise their freedom that way. If you believe that everyone should have the right to access the beach, it's up to you to convince other people. And to find enough muscle to enforce that right against those who inevitably disagree.

You’re conflating natural rights and legal rights. Just trying shit out is a natural right because nobody can make up a law to prevent that. But people can make up laws to greatly limit your enjoyment of just trying shit out. In this case, they have.

Natural rights aren't. There is no high authority in heaven enforcing them - it's just things that feel so right and obvious to everyone, that they can serve as universal common ground.

The only hard laws are laws of physics. Those laws say that, ultimately, if I can beat you to death, my wants trump yours. Everything else is built on top of that.

"Might makes right" never went away. It just got pushed upwards to nation states with monopoly on violence, which can create conditions that allow its populations to enjoy different rules. It still holds between nation states, which is why everyone keeps an army.

The world being mostly at peace in the past decades is a result of a multi-layered Mexican standoff. Nuclear powers are locked in MAD, and everyone else allies themselves with one.

So, to answer the original question:

> What supernatural being descended on earth and gave governments the supreme right to own the path from earth into space.

Nuclear weapons do. Or, in general, superior military strength. Governments are free to regulate whatever they want, however they want. They're limited from by self-preservation from both directions - from the bottom, avoiding a civil war; from the top, avoiding breaking the Mexican standoff.

It was more about contrasting freedoms and rights. If you believe in a right, you also believe that other people should not be allowed to violate that right. In that sense, rights are always about limiting freedom.

There are no rights in the nature. There is only freedom. If you want to make something a right – going to the beach or launching a rocket, for example – you need to convince other people of that. And you need a mechanism for enforcing the right.

> Again, don't say "safety". That's well understood. You don't want 200 rocket companies launching at the same time from the same area. Got it. The difference is, that scenario is about traffic control and not about having to get permission to travel.

The public safety interest doesn't end at launch, it covers the entire lifecycle of the equipment until it de-orbits. Amateur launch operators will also bring less sophistication around collision avoidance.

Middle of the ocean has been done already. 36 launches. No idea if they sought government licenses. Probably at least some kinds because few projects need to launch that don't use government business or support. For now. The point is, you can. Go for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Launch

If a country wouldn't own the airspace above their landmass, wouldn't that mean that it would be perfectly legal for groups of Russian balloons to float half a mile above every major American city?

It already is perfectly legal for Russian balloons to float where ever they want as long as they are at a high altitude that doesn't interfere with air traffic. It's also legal for the US to decide to shoot them down.

> It's also legal for the US to decide to shoot them down.

Why? It would be analogous to international waters. Is it legal for the US to sink a Swedish ship in international waters just because it dislikes its position?

> at a high altitude that doesn't interfere with air traffic

Which would mean outside of the scope of FAA's jurisdiction?

It’s not analogous to international waters at all.

The US military blows up stuff outside of the scope of FAA jurisdiction all the time. It’s kind of their thing.

Yes, but only because you're in the context of warfare. Even then it's not quite clear if it's legal if it were not for the "defense" argument.

Those Russian balloons could be there just to display Yandex ads.

> What supernatural being descended on earth and gave governments the supreme right to own the path from earth into space.

'Listen. Strange supernatural beings descending on earth is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses...'

> OK, so, if you could launch from a ship in the middle of the ocean you would be free to launch as you wish?

Couldn't that possibly be mistaken by countries around the world as an icbm launch. Given that danger, I'm pretty sure no private company would be allowed to launch rockets without government approval. But I'm just guessing.

> Couldn't that possibly be mistaken by countries around the world as an icbm launch [?]

"Col Sanders, we've just detected an icbm launch from the middle of the pacific ocean!"

"Who launched it?"

"Err... no idea". <-- probably the important point ;)

At which point these theoretical observers would probably be trying to get some kind of visual on the object, plus likely trajectory, etc.

Barring some really unfortunately co-incidents / accidents, they'd hopefully realise it's not an icbm.

In 1995 a scientific sub-orbital rocket was launched from Andøya in Norway. It got a little bit out of planned course and for some reason the message informing the Russians about the launch had not reached the radar controllers which just saw a rocket heading for Russia on their screens. It was total chaos and the nuclear briefcase were brought to Jeltsin. Luckily the rocket fell in the ocean after a few minutes and nuclear war was averted.

Interesting anecdote, but doesn't seem like it really fits the situation of "launched from the middle of an ocean". :)

Uh, you are aware that one leg of the nuclear triad are submarine launched ICBMs. That's about as "launched from the middle of an ocean" with no idea who launched it as you can get. That would exactly look like an ICBM launch at first.

Heh. Yeah, didn't even occur to me before you wrote that. Oops. :D

Sorry I was a little harsh! Not everyone thinks too much about submarines.

It's no worries. Sub launched stuff isn't something I should have forgotten about anyway. :)

Governments: if it moves regulate it, if it doesn’t then tax it.