Correct. I'm not doing anything illegal so can't be taken to court. So long as I dont interfere with the passage and navigation of a another vessel I can bob around out there as long as I want. Navigation in international waters doesn't say anything about landing rockets. Quote from: Jim on 03/01/2016 02:09 pmQuote from: CorvusCorax on 03/01/2016 02:07 pmAlso just because they can't stop you doesn't mean they can't sue you for messing with their business once you again set foot on US soil later. Especially if you did it on purpose.Spacex would have no ground for a suit.
Quote from: CorvusCorax on 03/01/2016 02:07 pmAlso just because they can't stop you doesn't mean they can't sue you for messing with their business once you again set foot on US soil later. Especially if you did it on purpose.Spacex would have no ground for a suit.
Also just because they can't stop you doesn't mean they can't sue you for messing with their business once you again set foot on US soil later. Especially if you did it on purpose.
As I recall, Soviet ELINT platforms (euphemistically labeled by the Russians as fishing trawlers) would criss-cross the keep-out zones during American manned launches back in the 60's and 70's. And NASA would never cancel their launches because of the presence of those trawlers in the zone. Had they done so, they would have given a green light to the Soviet Union (or any nation, organization or just individual) motivated to interfere with the American manned space program to go out and cancel launches by purposely traversing the keep-out zones.Again, the rules are obviously more complex than just "no one can be here when we launch."
Quote from: kevinof on 03/01/2016 02:29 pmCorrect. I'm not doing anything illegal so can't be taken to court. So long as I dont interfere with the passage and navigation of a another vessel I can bob around out there as long as I want. Navigation in international waters doesn't say anything about landing rockets. Quote from: Jim on 03/01/2016 02:09 pmQuote from: CorvusCorax on 03/01/2016 02:07 pmAlso just because they can't stop you doesn't mean they can't sue you for messing with their business once you again set foot on US soil later. Especially if you did it on purpose.Spacex would have no ground for a suit.Keep in mind that civil lawsuits don't necessarily depend on any criminal law, and can be international in scope (though not easy to do). Businesses sue other businesses for tort claims all the time. IANAL, but if a mariner has to read the NOTAM, and then takes action that interferes with the launch provider, somebody could make a claim on that.
Interesting -- the rules for holding a launch are not that there can be no vessels in the KO zone, it's that any vessels in that zone have to be small enough that they present a smaller statistical likelihood of being hit with debris from a failed launch than a larger vessel that would cause a violation.This illustrates that the rules are a lot more complex than just "Hey, everybody, get off my lawn!"
Quote from: Jim on 03/01/2016 02:09 pmQuote from: CorvusCorax on 03/01/2016 02:07 pmAlso just because they can't stop you doesn't mean they can't sue you for messing with their business once you again set foot on US soil later. Especially if you did it on purpose.Spacex would have no ground for a suit.If a private vessel were in international waters (near the coast for launch, or near the droneship for landing) and if people on-board were in any way injured after, say, a RUD, would they have grounds to sue?
Quote from: kevinof on 03/01/2016 01:37 pmNot saying it's the smart thing to do, but legally I could do it.But SpaceX would not be allowed to launch by FAA rules if you did that. I don't think they'd be happy. Also just because they can't stop you doesn't mean they can't sue you for messing with their business once you again set foot on US soil later. Especially if you did it on purpose.Quote from: Kabloona on 03/01/2016 02:03 pmThat's news to me. So let's all get out there in sea kayaks with handheld VHF radios...?that's the other thing. a single small vessel doesn't incur a high enough risk of "hitting it" - however in a target rich environment (like hundreds of spectators in kayaks) you'd also have as many times the risk as you have kayaks. So the question is, how many kayaks can be where in the stay out zone so they can still launch?
Not saying it's the smart thing to do, but legally I could do it.
That's news to me. So let's all get out there in sea kayaks with handheld VHF radios...?
Quote from: wes_wilson on 02/29/2016 05:24 pmActually, it looks like rocket reliability is part of the equation. Section 3.1 of that FAA doc says risk is the product of the probability of occurrence of an event (rocket failure here) and the consequences of that event (someone being hit by falling debris here)In the end, they don't use numbers specific to a vehicle.
Actually, it looks like rocket reliability is part of the equation. Section 3.1 of that FAA doc says risk is the product of the probability of occurrence of an event (rocket failure here) and the consequences of that event (someone being hit by falling debris here)
So they don't use the reliability of the specific rocket but they do use the size of the specific boat when calculating the probability of fatalities.That is a curious mix of precision and generality.
Here you go... File you range constraints, complaints and suggestions here:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39708.0