However, I don't think I'm being narrow when I consider interpretation based fairly upon an author's actual words and intent. I think that is how one is supposed to interpret statements. Anyone can interpret any words any way he or she wants to, but it seems to and intent of an author are invalid and should not be taken seriously. In short, both Jennings and the Air Force argue that the aerospace is one seamless medium, thus reinforcing the Air Force's doctrinal argument that because space systems and forces are merely extensions and examples of existing Air Force systems and forces, they should be owned and operated by the Air Force. The plain, unarguable fact is that systems that operate in the two mediums of the air and outer space respond to and are governed by two entirely different sets of the laws of physics.
Space craft operate according to the laws of orbital mechanics.
You need do nothing more than look at the two to intuitively understand the difference. Air planes have wings because they need wing-generated lift in order to fly. Space craft can be and often are shaped like the result of a NASA engineer on a two-week bender because they don't need wings to generate lift to be aerodynamically efficient. Thus, the aerospace is not a seamless physical medium, at least operationally. Another plain, unarguable fact is that the movement paths of air craft and space craft are treated completely differently under international law, which has a commonsensical recognition of the fact that the laws of Newton transcend the laws of legislatures.