Sorry, I disagree with you: ... where work, calculations or any other action is made by humans there mistake is possible. Result of that mistake can be less or bigger hazard event (to even extreme one). So I did ask hypothetic question that is real to happen under certain circumstances. And, at moment, it is less important will that happened or not but what we will do. I think all workers or citizens should be aware (signed that are aware) if this happened that call will be made so less damage is done and by that probably station will be moved from safety zone (perhaps not in space, in direction to deep space, but closer to the Sun etc). Among all are questions: what engendered solutions will be made that possible rebellion cannot change official call. What protocol will exist before and during that actions. What law we will need to write. And what engineered solutions need to be incorporated so provide better chance for survival and adjustment back to survival zone. Also I am sure many others can see more relevant questions we should answered related to this topic: "Mistake is done, It cannot be undo, … … " ------------------- and "deep space" was just picture that will show easy to understand that chance to survive is near 0% (0.?1%, where "?" can be one or more 0, I did not do math, sorry)

The protocol is simply called "orbit". Hitting the planet isn't an orbit. An orbit is basically an object travelling "forwards" that fast that by the time it's fallen "down", it's missed due to the curvature of the Earth(or applicable body). It's easy enough to do, just got to go fast enough. And don't aim for the big planet. The further out you are, the lower speed required to achieve. Traditionally, satellites and such that are still close enough to feature atmospheric drag compensate by periodically adding thrust to maintain this speed (ISS has to frequently). And you don't do the calculations, have a computer do that - it's what they're for. These are not new sums, they have been well tested. When dealing with something like a long term residential station, you don't just stick one thruster on and hope it copes - you build it with at least double, preferably tripple what it needs - preferably utilising at least two independant technologies so in case of failure of one, the other still operates - this protocol is called dual redundancy(or tripple). You go out of your way to make sure "bad things" *can't* happen, and then you do it again via another means. Or you don't even bother starting. What would you mean by "deep space"? Although having "no specific plans" NASA have suggested a cislunar base potentially planned for the retirement of ISS about 2025, possibly a few hundred kilometers the other side of the moon - that's still really close in space terms... Forming a base of operations in order to practice habitation and transport of deep space in preperation for, as well as providing a "springboard" for human trip to Mars. Yes, we'll definitely be hitting deep space eventually, but I personally think it to be a lot more sensible to start a lot closer to the planet. That's where it'd make sense to put the first farms for a start. Conventional and energy. Get everything running smooth then go somewhere we can't get back from in an emergency - by the time we're building out there we should have many stops between there and Earth... safety is of the upmost importance. Laws regarding orbital debris and causing damages are clearly laid out in the international space treaty.

Complimenti Antonio per la tua candidatura. Se ha qualche dubbio o domanda su Asgardia può considerarmi disponibile ad interfacciarmi direttamente con i vertici di Asgardia. Mio desiderio e creare un forte Team italiano. Se desideri puoi scrivermi a nicola.macina@asgardia.space . I miei migliori auguri. Asgardia's Member of Parliament Nicola Macina D5 Info utili PROGETTO ASGARDIA https://www.facebook.com/nicolamacinaasgardia/