[DuniyaGolHai]

China's 9.5 ton space station, Tiangong-1, will come falling from space.
Time window speculated is between March 29 to April 9.

So is it another bluff/conspiracy by space agency??? BTW its not NASA this time

[Pete Svarrior]

So is it another bluff/conspiracy by space agency???

Of course not. It's just another testament to the fact that sustained spaceflight is a myth.

Thank you for sharing and supporting our cause!

[AATW]

Define "sustained".
The ISS has been in orbit since 2000

[Tumeni]

It's just another testament to the fact that sustained spaceflight is a myth.

Based on the length of time it has been in orbit, what would you say constitutes a sustained flight, then?

[AATW]

I suspect Pete is on the wind up. It's a FE deflection. It will be yet another proof that there really are satellites orbiting our globe.

[DuniyaGolHai]

So is it another bluff/conspiracy by space agency???

Of course not. It's just another testament to the fact that sustained spaceflight is a myth.

Thank you for sharing and supporting our cause!

I am RE supporter

And this Tiangong-1 was launched in 2011 ... so it was orbiting for 7+ years...

Pete can only define what is 'Sustained' in this context....

[AATW]

Voyager has been travelling for 41 years.
The ISS has been orbiting for 18.

I reckon that's pretty sustained.

[nickrulercreator]

Pete, it's well known that satellites will be exposed to drag by the few particles. Sustained, for most people, just means achieving orbit and maintaining it for a few orbits. Are you meaning sustained indefinitely? That's possible, but difficult.

[Dither]

China's 9.5 ton space station, Tiangong-1, will come falling from space.

Aww Great,
More things to worry about, its probably gonna hit Australia again.
I had vivid nightmares the night Skylab fell, kept thinking it was crashing into our house.
Is this thing (Tiangong-1) Nuclear? Do we need to worry about that too?

[Tumeni]

"Presented with the uncontrolled re-entry of Tiangong-1, 13 space agencies are using the event to test new tracking models and equipment, including radar, lasers and optical telescopes. Over the coming days and weeks, the agencies will pool their data in a bid to sharpen their predictions of where and when the object will fall."

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/09/tiangong-1-scientists-unsure-where-chinese-space-station-will-crash-to-earth

So ...13 different space agencies, using a variety of tracking methods, are tracking an orbital craft, to see where it will finally break up.

According to FE contributors here, does this qualify as "empirical evidence"?

[Tumeni]

Of course not. It's just another testament to the fact that sustained spaceflight is a myth.

So that's a tacit admission that it was actually in flight, in space, but it just didn't 'sustain' this flight to meet your criteria?

[SpaceCadet]

Great analysis Pete. I saw it on the internet so it cannot be true.

By the way, isn't that the spacecraft they "lost"? Must have been hidden behind the dome

[Pete Svarrior]

it was actually in flight, in space

For a very selective definition of "space", possibly.

Great analysis Pete. I saw it on the internet so it cannot be true.

I see people are still struggling with this statement. To say that you shouldn't automatically believe everything you see online does not mean you should automatically disbelieve it.

[StinkyOne]

it was actually in flight, in space

For a very selective definition of "space", possibly.

Great analysis Pete. I saw it on the internet so it cannot be true.

I see people are still struggling with this statement. To say that you shouldn't automatically believe everything you see online does not mean you should automatically disbelieve it.

Would you mind clarifying which definition of space we should be using? The generally accepted definition is anything over 60 miles in altitude.

[Curious Squirrel]

it was actually in flight, in space

For a very selective definition of "space", possibly.

Great analysis Pete. I saw it on the internet so it cannot be true.

I see people are still struggling with this statement. To say that you shouldn't automatically believe everything you see online does not mean you should automatically disbelieve it.

Would you mind clarifying which definition of space we should be using? The generally accepted definition is anything over 60 miles in altitude.

I would also still personally like a clarification of 'sustained' as used earlier, as you appear to be working off a different idea or definition of it than is common parlance. Anything that continues multiple times per day for many days sure seems pretty sustained to me. A 'sustained orbit' is not a never ending orbit.

[Tumeni]

it was actually in flight, in space

For a very selective definition of "space", possibly.

I didn't think I had 'defined' it. Are you saying you have a different/less selective definition from .... science? NASA? SpaceX?