Would a cloud-home(literal) be against the law to build/have?

[Unity+]

I was thinking about how, in the future, there will be cloud-homes or cloud cities, maybe. However, the question is it illegal to have one at the moment? If one were to be built(theoretically), would it be against the law? Is there any law against limits on how high it can go, legally?

[Sato]

I would imagine the regulations would be similar to those for blimps / airships, which are described here: http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/airships/airships_regs/.

 

Also related might be the rules for hot air ballooning, described here: https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/balloons/balloons_regs/

 

There are also regulations for all aircraft within controlled US air space, and a deliniation of what space is "controlled" and what isn't. That refers to air traffic control though, and not national "sovereign space", which a country's laws extend to; as far as I know, there's no set elevation for this.

 

I don't think we'll have floating cities though; more likely, before the space age, will be artificial islands (seasteads), which would be cheaper than making hovering or underwater cities / homes. Though, we already know what happens when libertarians build sea cities, and patriotic americans build air-villes.

[ajb]

Against the law where? Any country could of course amend its laws to permit such things if that is needed.

 

I have no idea what would be the case outside of airspace, i.e. areas not controlled by governments and not under air traffic control.

[swansont]

Against the law where? Any country could of course amend its laws to permit such things if that is needed.

 

I have no idea what would be the case outside of airspace, i.e. areas not controlled by governments and not under air traffic control.

 

There has to be some demarcation where flying in someone's airspace, considered a breach of sovereign territory, gives way to flying in space, which AFAIK, is not. Presumably at 100 km, or some valuer prescribed by international law.

 

But that's at the nation level, not the individual level. Can you build a cloud-house and fly it 50 meters or even 500 meters above my dwelling? Once that becomes a possibility, my guess is the answer will be "no"

[Phi for All]

There has to be some demarcation where flying in someone's airspace, considered a breach of sovereign territory, gives way to flying in space, which AFAIK, is not.

The subject of outer space above a specific country is pretty touchy. The Outer Space Treaty says no country owns outer space, but some of the equatorial countries are still arguing that at least part of the GSO is theirs by right of geographical location, and they should have a right to request that nobody parks anything above them. Colombia is the most vocal in this group currently, and AFAIK still maintains that "their" outer space will be treated the same as their airspace.

[Unity+]

The subject of outer space above a specific country is pretty touchy. The Outer Space Treaty says no country owns outer space, but some of the equatorial countries are still arguing that at least part of the GSO is theirs by right of geographical location, and they should have a right to request that nobody parks anything above them. Colombia is the most vocal in this group currently, and AFAIK still maintains that "their" outer space will be treated the same as their airspace.

If those countries have established that geography is what defines their space property, then they automatically claim an infinite amount of space that sits above their nation, outside of Earth. Seems a bit greedy, imo unless that is not what they meant.

 

There has to be some demarcation where flying in someone's airspace, considered a breach of sovereign territory, gives way to flying in space, which AFAIK, is not. Presumably at 100 km, or some valuer prescribed by international law.

 

But that's at the nation level, not the individual level. Can you build a cloud-house and fly it 50 meters or even 500 meters above my dwelling? Once that becomes a possibility, my guess is the answer will be "no"

But why would it be illegal or should it be illegal?

[Phi for All]

If those countries have established that geography is what defines their space property, then they automatically claim an infinite amount of space that sits above their nation, outside of Earth. Seems a bit greedy, imo unless that is not what they meant.

Oh, I think that's exactly what they meant. But I think it's more of a way to curtail the greed of other countries.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit

Satellites in geostationary orbit must all occupy a single ring above the Equator. The requirement to space these satellites apart to avoid harmful radio-frequency interference during operations means that there are a limited number of orbital "slots" available, thus only a limited number of satellites can be operated in geostationary orbit. This has led to conflict between different countries wishing access to the same orbital slots (countries near the same longitude but differing latitudes) and radio frequencies. These disputes are addressed through the International Telecommunication Union's allocation mechanism.[10][11] In the 1976 Bogotá Declaration, eight countries located on the Earth's equator claimed sovereignty over the geostationary orbits above their territory, but the claims gained no international recognition.[12]

 

I think these countries are worried about the big guys taking up all the best territory, in outer space directly above them. Iirc, they wanted the GSO declared a natural resource rather than a region of space, to get around the treaties.

 

But why would it be illegal or should it be illegal?

Because you're blocking my solar panels with your sky castle.

 

Because you can't adequately guarantee something isn't going to fall off your property onto mine.

 

Because seeing "the underside of the city" is a bad thing, right?

[swansont]

 

Because you're blocking my solar panels with your sky castle.

 

Because you can't adequately guarantee something isn't going to fall off your property onto mine.

 

Because seeing "the underside of the city" is a bad thing, right?

 

There are also privacy issues. One of the first things to pop up is a paparazzi palace (or a fleet of them), and others owned by those frustrated by fences, should this become possible.

[Phi for All]

It all has a "King of the Mountain" feel to it, scrambling to be on top of lesser folks. I think technology like this would increase feelings of inequality. Perhaps it's just sour grapes because I could probably never afford to live in cloud city (it would have to have a pretty hefty price tag, I'm assuming), but I keep flashing on the image of the upper classes emptying their chamber pots out the windows onto the lower classes.

[swansont]

It all has a "King of the Mountain" feel to it, scrambling to be on top of lesser folks. I think technology like this would increase feelings of inequality. Perhaps it's just sour grapes because I could probably never afford to live in cloud city (it would have to have a pretty hefty price tag, I'm assuming), but I keep flashing on the image of the upper classes emptying their chamber pots out the windows onto the lower classes.

 

Literally, rather than metaphorically. Trickle-down, come to life.

[Phi for All]

 

Literally, rather than metaphorically. Trickle-down, come to life.

 

"You'll love our views as much as our point-of-view! Be better, be above, be apart... of Reaganopolis."

[Unity+]

Well, tbh, the reason I ask this is because I was planning onto developing a "cloud-home" of my own using traditional bimp technology.

 

The design would be something along these lines, except dome-shaped instead of the regular design:

 

 

Of course, it's only a design I am basing it off of and it's mostly something to build in the future if I get the time/money.

[Greg H.]

From Wikipedia:

In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the sole authority to control all public airspace, exclusively determining the rules and requirements for its use. Public air space is classified as the 'navigable' airspace above 500 feet.[1] The general rule is that airplanes must fly high enough that, in the event of an engine failure, the pilot can land the plane without undue hazards to persons or property on the ground. The exact altitude requirements (except for purposes of takeoff and landing) are as follows. In congested areas, airplanes must stay 1,000 feet (300 m) higher than any obstacle (building, antenna, etc.) within a 2,000 feet (610 m) radius of the aircraft. In non congested, sparsely populated areas, or over bodies of water, the pilot must remain at least 500 feet (150 m) from any person, vehicle, vessel, or structure.[2] Private landowners retain their right to exclusive use of the airspace for the reasonable enjoyment of their property up to 500 feet above their lands.[3]

So, at least in the United States, if you wanted to hover above 500 feet, you'd need permission from the Federal Government. Below 500 feet, and you need permission from the owner(s) of the property below you.

 

In either case, you wold probably still need some kind of certification from the FAA that the craft is safe to be up there in the first place.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Greg H.

[imatfaal]

I would have thought that airborne dwellings and the law surrounding them would follow a similar pattern to the development of the law of the sea; from merely being the maintenance of law of the land extended a few miles out to sea to the systems of flag states, international law of the sea etc.

 

you could also look for parallels in those strange sea-fort places in the north sea and off the irish coast. A few have been taken over and claimed sovereignty - the UK foreign office made it clear that if any of the data-havens that have gone there try anything silly then the claims of sovereignty might be tested by a squadron of the royal navy. I have also heard of data-havens setting up in converted old freighters - again their claims of being outside jurisdiction have never been tested but would be rapidly sorted by any govt that felt the need

[StringJunky]

From Wikipedia:

 

So, at least in the United States, if you wanted to hover above 500 feet, you'd need permission from the Federal Government. Below 500 feet, and you need permission from the owner(s) of the property below you.

 

In either case, you wold probably still need some kind of certification from the FAA that the craft is safe to be up there in the first place.

Maximum height for a UAV without aviation authority permission is 400 feet in US, UK and Australia. If one owns the first 500 feet above, then any UAV over your property can be deemed as suspicious and reportable..

[Unity+]

It all has a "King of the Mountain" feel to it, scrambling to be on top of lesser folks. I think technology like this would increase feelings of inequality. Perhaps it's just sour grapes because I could probably never afford to live in cloud city (it would have to have a pretty hefty price tag, I'm assuming), but I keep flashing on the image of the upper classes emptying their chamber pots out the windows onto the lower classes.

That reminds me of the movie where the lower-class live on the environmentally-destroyed Earth while the higher class live on some orbiting space ship in the sky. Can't remember the name of the movie though.

 

EDIT: The movie is Elysium.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Unity+

[Acme]

Well, tbh, the reason I ask this is because I was planning onto developing a "cloud-home" of my own using traditional bimp technology.

 

The design would be something along these lines, except dome-shaped instead of the regular design:

 

 

Of course, it's only a design I am basing it off of and it's mostly something to build in the future if I get the time/money.

Locate your cloud home over an ocean and be done with all the airspace squabbling. What you want is more of a dirigible than a blimp and I would use hydrogen and not helium. Flammability issues can be dealt with and you can make your own hydrogen using photovoltaics and seawater. Hydrogen gives a little more lift than helium and the supply of helium is limited, regulated, and expensive.

 

Better arm the crap out of it too as you can be sure you will be a constant target for one reason or another. Good luck!

[Unity+]

Locate your cloud home over an ocean and be done with all the airspace squabbling. What you want is more of a dirigible than a blimp and I would use hydrogen and not helium. Flammability issues can be dealt with and you can make your own hydrogen using photovoltaics and seawater. Hydrogen gives a little more lift than helium and the supply of helium is limited, regulated, and expensive.

 

Better arm the crap out of it too as you can be sure you will be a constant target for one reason or another. Good luck!

Coincidentally, I was just considering that, since international waters don't have the same regulations.

 

 

Using particular methods, as you said, I can use sea water as both a source of energy, water, and hydrogen.

[Klaynos]

Coincidentally, I was just considering that, since international waters don't have the same regulations.

 

 

Using particular methods, as you said, I can use sea water as both a source of energy, water, and hydrogen.

International air space still has rules though.

 

For the most part a blimp would probably be below the controlled spaces over the oceans. You'd still need to follow the rules whenever you wanted to land though.

[Unity+]

International air space still has rules though.

 

For the most part a blimp would probably be below the controlled spaces over the oceans. You'd still need to follow the rules whenever you wanted to land though.

Airspace^[1] is the portion of the atmosphere controlled by a country above its territory, including its territorial waters or, more generally, any specific three-dimensional portion of the atmosphere. It is not the same asaerospace, which is the general term for Earth's atmosphere and the outer space in its vicinity.

• Controlled airspace^[2] exists where it is deemed necessary that air traffic control has some form of positive executive control over aircraft flying in that airspace (however, air traffic control does not necessarily control traffic operating under visual flight rules (VFR)^[3] within this airspace).

• Uncontrolled airspace^[4] is airspace in which air traffic control does not exert any executive authority, although it may act in an advisory manner.

Airspace may be further subdivided into a variety of areas and zones, including those where there are either restrictions on flying activities or complete prohibition of flying activities.

By international law, the notion of a country's sovereign airspace corresponds with the maritime definition of territorial watersas being 12 nautical miles (22.2 km) out from a nation's coastline. Airspace not within any country's territorial limit is considered international, analogous to the "high seas" in maritime law. However, a country may, by international agreement, assume responsibility for controlling parts of international airspace, such as those over the oceans. For instance, the United States provides air traffic control services over a large part of the Pacific Ocean, even though the airspace is international.

[Greg H.]

Maximum height for a UAV without aviation authority permission is 400 feet in US, UK and Australia. If one owns the first 500 feet above, then any UAV over your property can be deemed as suspicious and reportable..

Technically, you could file a police report for trespassing as well, since it's "on your property without permission".

 

I'm a huge fan of shooting it down, personally. I wonder what the range on one of those bean bag rounds is?

[StringJunky]

Technically, you could file a police report for trespassing as well, since it's "on your property without permission".

 

I'm a huge fan of shooting it down, personally. I wonder what the range on one of those bean bag rounds is?

Strong catty and ball-bearings. Some targeteable interference device would be better so the operator loses control.

[Unity+]

Strong catty and ball-bearings. Some targeteable interference device would be better so the operator loses control.

Why not just get an anti-aircraft weapon and replace the ammo with less-lethal ammunition?

 

EDIT: This is starting to deviate from the actual topic lol.

 

It would be interesting to see if a "people's" nation could be formed in international seas/airspace, since it is under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Unity+