- #36
256bits
Gold Member
- 3,899
- 1,945
I think the state responsible for sending something into space is also responsible for damage caused when it comes down.sophiecentaur said:It strikes me that wilfully ignoring the possibility of such a disaster in the initial planning of the space station should be treated as a criminal act. The must have been a time in the station's life when it could have been brought down Smith precision and somewhere safe. This is a potential International Incident; it is not a potential act of god.
But some nations have less regard than others for human life.
Apparently there is:256bits said:...
I don't know if there is a special treaty to that, and/or if everyone needs to sign on.
...
If you are referring to the dip then rise in altitude, that's actually because it's in a slightly elliptical orbit.Spinnor said:...
Looks like it is predicted to skip a bit?
...
On Satview that was their projected reentry location and it was an April 1 notice. The post from Spinnor #40 has a closer location to the last projection that Satview said was from USstratCom when I made my previous post here. They said USstratCom projected April 2 00:15 UTC and they now have a USstratCom message stating that Tingong 1 had reentered the atmosphere on April 2 at 00:16 UTC +/- 1 minute, on the link below.mfb said:Here is a reliable source.
That's it. Very close to the usual place for planned deorbits.