SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license(cnet.com)
cnet.com
SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license
https://www.cnet.com/news/spacex-cant-broadcast-earth-images-because-of-a-murky-license/
131 comments
It's a farce that you need a license to take pictures at all. I'm sure Russian and Chinese satellites already take photos of the US military bases regularly.
They’re not under the jurisdiction of a US agency.
Which makes it even more dumb, the people we don't want taking pictures do so at will while the people we don't mind taking pictures are banned.
I don't know about you, but Facebook is under US jurisdiction, and I'd rather they didn't launch a remote-sensing satellite without going through some regulatory hoops.
It's also dumb because it gives them incentive to just move to another country that doesn't care.
Welcome to most laws.
Speak for yourself - i dont want companies taking pictures.
But they do, commercial satellite imagery is a big business (anyone who has used Google Earth knows this). It's just not the business SpaceX is in so it's not worth going through the hassle.
That wasnt the main idea of my statement.
I contend that my desire differs from parent comments claim
I contend that my desire differs from parent comments claim
What gives that agency jurisdiction over things in orbit? This whole thing seems really strange.
The US Government has granted NOAA that authority over American companies and the things they put into orbit.
They don’t have that authority over things OTHER countries and their companies put into orbit.
They don’t have that authority over things OTHER countries and their companies put into orbit.
They have jurisdiction over the SpaceX as a US company, thus the power to force them to adhere to regs
They better as fuck not be : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talk...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty
Those have all either expired or weren't ratified, and the current treaty (New START) explicitly allows satellite monitoring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START
depends on the type of monitoring
Since we're talking about cameras and not missiles, I ctrl+f'd for "picture" and "camera" on all of those links and didn't see any results. Do those treaties prohibit cameras?
depends on the camera, IR is pretty well forbidden
Just as US military satellites take pictures of Russian and Chinese facilities as well. Both can play this game
I don't think anyone contested that...?
So it would be pretty silly for Russia to ban similar cameras for fear of state secrets being uncovered, right?
Oh no, don't get me wrong, I think the regulation is totally stupid. Why bother regulating something over which you have no control of? It is just putting unnecessary barriers for domestic innovators while your real competition is not wasting precious cycles.
> Tiny cameras stuck to the side of SpaceX rockets should not be classified as "remote sensing systems."
I would say they should not generally be classified as "remote sensing systems." 'Cause you know someone would push things too far.
I would say they should not generally be classified as "remote sensing systems." 'Cause you know someone would push things too far.
Can't think of anyone that ever take a situation and abuse it, push it too far, do something it wasn't intended to by its initial design... definitely wouldn't consider anyone such as law enforcement agencies or city, state or federal government doing any such thing... because you know, people are reasonable, right? </sardonic sarcasm tag>
I guess abusing loopholes is the monopoly of authority.
I guess abusing loopholes is the monopoly of authority.
SpaceX just needs to make some silicone hands that hold the cameras and they'll be set.
> Remote sensing systems are a thing, and there are good reasons to regulate them.
I'm curious. What do you consider those to be? More importantly, do you consider the First Amendment to supersede these laws?
I'm curious. What do you consider those to be? More importantly, do you consider the First Amendment to supersede these laws?
When you fail at your job, you can always complain about something.
These are excuses and attempts to get press. Nothing more.
These are excuses and attempts to get press. Nothing more.
Sorry, could you clarify your comment? Who has failed at their job, and who is making excuses and attempting to get press?
>SpaceX says it is working to obtain a full license for its cameras to prevent having to shorten future launch webcasts.
SpaceX told NOAA that they were recording, NOAA didnt know, they are short staffed. This let SpaceX complain about 'not being able to record'.
Knowing that SpaceX is Elon's PR company for Tesla, its just another way for him to get in the news without doing anything.
I question if they were waiting on 'using this' for a bad mission. One where they didnt want to show the video, but still get press points.
SpaceX has always been a very heavily marketed company. You should be skeptical whenever they get headlines.
SpaceX told NOAA that they were recording, NOAA didnt know, they are short staffed. This let SpaceX complain about 'not being able to record'.
Knowing that SpaceX is Elon's PR company for Tesla, its just another way for him to get in the news without doing anything.
I question if they were waiting on 'using this' for a bad mission. One where they didnt want to show the video, but still get press points.
SpaceX has always been a very heavily marketed company. You should be skeptical whenever they get headlines.
> SpaceX has always been a very heavily marketed company. You should be skeptical whenever they get headlines.
I don't understand how SpaceX deserves any more skepticism than any other company's headlines at this point.
I don't understand how SpaceX deserves any more skepticism than any other company's headlines at this point.
This makes me wince. Is broad interpretation of that rule really the best use of an "extremely small" office that probably has a really good reason for existing otherwise? These sorts of regulatory foot faults have a very real cost to innovation. Think of what these videos have done for public interest in space travel and the imaginations of millions. Unless there's some overwhelming reason for this rule to apply in these circumstances, it's time to rewrite or reinterpret.
"Extremely small office" is a typical public sector reply in the PIIGS in order to get a bribe to 'make things move faster'.
Or a piece of bureacracy in order to harass anyone we want, anytime we want.
Also.. an "Act" on what to do in Space? Seriously? So when that thing flies over (e.g.) Japan should it follow Japan's laws? Or we only count the base location? In which case movie it to (e.g.) Greenland and problem solved!
All these years of watching Star Trek universe (series & movies) taught me nothing!!!
Or a piece of bureacracy in order to harass anyone we want, anytime we want.
Also.. an "Act" on what to do in Space? Seriously? So when that thing flies over (e.g.) Japan should it follow Japan's laws? Or we only count the base location? In which case movie it to (e.g.) Greenland and problem solved!
All these years of watching Star Trek universe (series & movies) taught me nothing!!!
Your narrow-minded anger is ill-informed.
First, there are quite a few very obvious reasons why it's in humanity's interest to regulate space missions. You want to minimise space debris, for example, because it could result in a series of collisions making near-earth orbits a wasteland you can't cross.
That's why there are rules on the size, structure, orbits, data sharing, disposal mechanisms and other features of space missions. These are set out in international agreements and enforced by the operator's country of origin. Greenland is a territory of Denmark, and your proposed "pirate launches" would be regulated by the European Space Agency. Problem (really) solved!
There's also stuff like the Outer Space Treaty, a valiant (and mostly effective) effort of international cooperation preventing a wasteful and dangerous arms race in space. Yeah, Trump seems to be reneging on that as well, go figure.
"Extremely small office" is simply a fact. There are three people working on this subject. Since most people will agree that SpaceX's videos really isn't much of a problem, nobody is actually complaining about past non-enforcement. Therefore, the lack of enforcement really isn't a very strong argument for increased funding, is it?
Providing a potentially understaffed office with the resources it needs isn't a "bribe". These people would not personally get any money. They are not asking for money from SpaceX or any other interested party.
Regarding this specific licensing requirement, a good read is https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/files/15%20CFR%20Part%2096.... It's the result of a public deliberation and shows the different goals, stakeholders, and experiences underlying the regulation, and how they have to be balanced.
> All these years of watching Star Trek universe (series & movies) taught me nothing!!!
indeed...
First, there are quite a few very obvious reasons why it's in humanity's interest to regulate space missions. You want to minimise space debris, for example, because it could result in a series of collisions making near-earth orbits a wasteland you can't cross.
That's why there are rules on the size, structure, orbits, data sharing, disposal mechanisms and other features of space missions. These are set out in international agreements and enforced by the operator's country of origin. Greenland is a territory of Denmark, and your proposed "pirate launches" would be regulated by the European Space Agency. Problem (really) solved!
There's also stuff like the Outer Space Treaty, a valiant (and mostly effective) effort of international cooperation preventing a wasteful and dangerous arms race in space. Yeah, Trump seems to be reneging on that as well, go figure.
"Extremely small office" is simply a fact. There are three people working on this subject. Since most people will agree that SpaceX's videos really isn't much of a problem, nobody is actually complaining about past non-enforcement. Therefore, the lack of enforcement really isn't a very strong argument for increased funding, is it?
Providing a potentially understaffed office with the resources it needs isn't a "bribe". These people would not personally get any money. They are not asking for money from SpaceX or any other interested party.
Regarding this specific licensing requirement, a good read is https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/files/15%20CFR%20Part%2096.... It's the result of a public deliberation and shows the different goals, stakeholders, and experiences underlying the regulation, and how they have to be balanced.
> All these years of watching Star Trek universe (series & movies) taught me nothing!!!
indeed...
>First, there are quite a few very obvious reasons why it's in humanity's interest to regulate space missions. You want to minimise space debris, for example, because it could result in a series of collisions making near-earth orbits a wasteland you can't cross.
Preventing space debris is not related to this topic in the least. Neither is preventing a "space arms race".
>Providing a potentially understaffed office with the resources it needs isn't a "bribe".
It seems to me that the best way to solve this problem is to get rid of this useless office.
>Regarding this specific licensing requirement, a good read is https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/files/15%20CFR%20Part%2096...
I don't think it's good discussion etiquette to link to an unreadable wall of bureaucratic text and not give any context. I.e. at least state one good reason for this regulation.
Preventing space debris is not related to this topic in the least. Neither is preventing a "space arms race".
>Providing a potentially understaffed office with the resources it needs isn't a "bribe".
It seems to me that the best way to solve this problem is to get rid of this useless office.
>Regarding this specific licensing requirement, a good read is https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/files/15%20CFR%20Part%2096...
I don't think it's good discussion etiquette to link to an unreadable wall of bureaucratic text and not give any context. I.e. at least state one good reason for this regulation.
> Preventing space debris is not related to this topic in the least. Neither is preventing a "space arms race".
The relation is OP's complete and naive refusal to entertain the possibility and usefulness of regulating private activity in space.
> It seems to me that the best way to solve this problem is to get rid of this useless office. > I don't think it's good discussion etiquette to link to an unreadable wall of bureaucratic text and not give any context. I.e. at least state one good reason for this regulation.
See: it's this attitude that keeps the level of such discussions at a kindergarten level. The linked document contains text, yes. But it's perfectly readable English. The first paragraph is headlined "SUMMARY" and contains this justification for the regulation and the office implementing it:
They are intended to facilitate the development of the U.S. commercial remote sensing industry and promote the collection and widespread availability of Earth remote sensing data, while preserving essential U.S. national security interests, foreign policy and international obligations.
You can easily find a later section entitled "Purpose" that expands on it:
(1) Preserve the national security of the United States;
(2) Observe the foreign policies and international obligations of the United States;
(3) Advance and protect U.S. national security and foreign policy interests by maintaining U.S. leadership in remote sensing space activities, and by sustaining and enhancing the U.S. remote sensing industry;
(4) Promote the broad use of remote sensing data, their information products and applications;
(5) Ensure that unenhanced data collected by licensed private remote sensing space systems concerning the territory of any country are made available to the government of that country upon its request, as soon as such data are available and on reasonable commercial terms and conditions as appropriate;
(6) Ensure that remotely sensed data are widely available for civil and scientific research, particularly environmental and global change research; and
(7) Maintain a permanent comprehensive U.S. government archive of global land remote sensing data for long-term monitoring and study of the changing global environment.
Those seem to be seven good reasons. If you want to argue their merit, you should start with a good-faith effort to understand them.
The relation is OP's complete and naive refusal to entertain the possibility and usefulness of regulating private activity in space.
> It seems to me that the best way to solve this problem is to get rid of this useless office. > I don't think it's good discussion etiquette to link to an unreadable wall of bureaucratic text and not give any context. I.e. at least state one good reason for this regulation.
See: it's this attitude that keeps the level of such discussions at a kindergarten level. The linked document contains text, yes. But it's perfectly readable English. The first paragraph is headlined "SUMMARY" and contains this justification for the regulation and the office implementing it:
They are intended to facilitate the development of the U.S. commercial remote sensing industry and promote the collection and widespread availability of Earth remote sensing data, while preserving essential U.S. national security interests, foreign policy and international obligations.
You can easily find a later section entitled "Purpose" that expands on it:
(1) Preserve the national security of the United States;
(2) Observe the foreign policies and international obligations of the United States;
(3) Advance and protect U.S. national security and foreign policy interests by maintaining U.S. leadership in remote sensing space activities, and by sustaining and enhancing the U.S. remote sensing industry;
(4) Promote the broad use of remote sensing data, their information products and applications;
(5) Ensure that unenhanced data collected by licensed private remote sensing space systems concerning the territory of any country are made available to the government of that country upon its request, as soon as such data are available and on reasonable commercial terms and conditions as appropriate;
(6) Ensure that remotely sensed data are widely available for civil and scientific research, particularly environmental and global change research; and
(7) Maintain a permanent comprehensive U.S. government archive of global land remote sensing data for long-term monitoring and study of the changing global environment.
Those seem to be seven good reasons. If you want to argue their merit, you should start with a good-faith effort to understand them.
I really don't see any of those reasons as being sufficient to cover SpaceX launch videos other than in the most narrow bureaucratic sense.
(1) Is dubious at best in this context, given that they do permit the first couple of 10's of KM up and only after that does this office's authority come into play. By then any imagery at HD video resolution of the United States has zero implication for national security. (2) and (3) are neutrals by my interpretation. And it actually flat out contradicts (4), (5), (6) and (7), since it isn't promoting it but actively tries to reduce it and blocks the public dissemination of the live streams they were already making available.
GGGPs arguments made no sense, yours are more verbose and seemingly better founded but they also make no sense.
This is just a nice example of a bunch of people with no actual stake in the outcome flexing their bureaucratic muscle, the equivalent of the little people behind government institutions little windows in places of 'public service' whose only role in life seems to be to ruin yours and to send you to another colleague behind another window.
> If you want to argue their merit, you should start with a good-faith effort to understand them.
That goes for you too, in particular for stuff you quote.
(1) Is dubious at best in this context, given that they do permit the first couple of 10's of KM up and only after that does this office's authority come into play. By then any imagery at HD video resolution of the United States has zero implication for national security. (2) and (3) are neutrals by my interpretation. And it actually flat out contradicts (4), (5), (6) and (7), since it isn't promoting it but actively tries to reduce it and blocks the public dissemination of the live streams they were already making available.
GGGPs arguments made no sense, yours are more verbose and seemingly better founded but they also make no sense.
This is just a nice example of a bunch of people with no actual stake in the outcome flexing their bureaucratic muscle, the equivalent of the little people behind government institutions little windows in places of 'public service' whose only role in life seems to be to ruin yours and to send you to another colleague behind another window.
> If you want to argue their merit, you should start with a good-faith effort to understand them.
That goes for you too, in particular for stuff you quote.
In reading through the document linked, NOAA is not going off on their own in order to demand this license. US congress made public laws relating to what commercial industry can and cannot do for space sensing. NOAA is the organization in charge of ensuring that the law is actually followed. They do not (and should not) have the ability to decide which companies/people can and cannot follow the law. From the text:
"The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issues regulations revising the agency’s requirements for the licensing, monitoring and compliance of operators of private Earth remote sensing space systems under Title II of the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (the Act). These regulations implement the provisions of the Act, as amended by the 1998 Commercial Space Act, and the 2003 U.S. Commercial Remote Sensing Policy."
"The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issues regulations revising the agency’s requirements for the licensing, monitoring and compliance of operators of private Earth remote sensing space systems under Title II of the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (the Act). These regulations implement the provisions of the Act, as amended by the 1998 Commercial Space Act, and the 2003 U.S. Commercial Remote Sensing Policy."
Yes, but for the past three decades this wasn't a problem during space launches and now that SpaceX comes along on their 50th+ launch it suddenly is a problem.
To me that looks like a trumped up reason, if there was any real concern then it would have been noted at launch #1.
To me that looks like a trumped up reason, if there was any real concern then it would have been noted at launch #1.
> Yes, but for the past three decades this wasn't a problem during space launches
More than likely, that's because the commercial companies who needed the license got the license.
> now that SpaceX comes along on their 50th+ launch it suddenly is a problem.
Probably because the technology on this payload fall under the requirements of the law to need it, and the company who owns the payload didn't get the license. Or, NOAA was unaware of the satellites until now and realize they need to follow up. Since they are a small shop and are not omniscient, that can happen.
EDIT: I misread the article, I meant the launches, not the payloads.
More than likely, that's because the commercial companies who needed the license got the license.
> now that SpaceX comes along on their 50th+ launch it suddenly is a problem.
Probably because the technology on this payload fall under the requirements of the law to need it, and the company who owns the payload didn't get the license. Or, NOAA was unaware of the satellites until now and realize they need to follow up. Since they are a small shop and are not omniscient, that can happen.
EDIT: I misread the article, I meant the launches, not the payloads.
Based on the article text, it looks like it wasn't even NOAA following up so much as SpaceX doing their due diligence at the very last minute and realizing they needed a license too late to get it approved. In which case, it's probably the billion dollar launch vehicle provider whose processes really warrant the most questions and not the three person bureau tasked with navigating license applications through other areas of government.
It's amazing how people can get from a description of that sequence of events to tinfoilhattery about bureaucrats "flexing their muscles" with "trumped up reasons". If anything, a logical explanation is probably the opposite: NOAA doesn't have enough control of the remote sensing licensing process to do a flagship government contractor the favour of forcing a license through, and certainly don't have the power to rewrite the law to accord to people's views that SpaceX's videos aren't sufficiently high resolution to matter.
It's amazing how people can get from a description of that sequence of events to tinfoilhattery about bureaucrats "flexing their muscles" with "trumped up reasons". If anything, a logical explanation is probably the opposite: NOAA doesn't have enough control of the remote sensing licensing process to do a flagship government contractor the favour of forcing a license through, and certainly don't have the power to rewrite the law to accord to people's views that SpaceX's videos aren't sufficiently high resolution to matter.
From TFA
"It appears that NOAA has recently decided to start interpreting or enforcing a decades-old law: "
So yes, SpaceX approached NOAA, as they should. And NOAA did not give them the required license in time for whatever reason.
"It appears that NOAA has recently decided to start interpreting or enforcing a decades-old law: "
So yes, SpaceX approached NOAA, as they should. And NOAA did not give them the required license in time for whatever reason.
Given that it's publicly documented[1] that license approval involves coordination with (as a minimum) U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of State and U.S. Department of the Interior and at least 120 days should be allowed, and SpaceX chose to apply three days before a launch I'd have a hard time interpreting the fact the license was not granted in time as the fault of anyone other than SpaceX.
[1]https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/generalFAQ.html
[1]https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/generalFAQ.html
> More than likely, that's because the commercial companies who needed the license got the license.
More likely: they just woke up to the possibility of showing the world they exist.
> Probably because the technology on this payload fall under the requirements of the law to need it, and the company who owns the payload didn't get the license.
I don't see what it has to do with payloads.
> Or, NOAA was unaware of the satellites until now and realize they need to follow up.
It's not about the satellites, it is about the launches, specifically video from orbit.
More likely: they just woke up to the possibility of showing the world they exist.
> Probably because the technology on this payload fall under the requirements of the law to need it, and the company who owns the payload didn't get the license.
I don't see what it has to do with payloads.
> Or, NOAA was unaware of the satellites until now and realize they need to follow up.
It's not about the satellites, it is about the launches, specifically video from orbit.
> More likely: they just woke up to the possibility of showing the world they exist.
I mean, the only evidence we've got is an article which quite clearly states that (i) SpaceX were the ones who contacted NOAA (ii) NOAA did not contact SpaceX regarding other launches, say it was SpaceX's responsibility to contact them and they don't think they have the resources to go chasing unlicensed remote sensing companies anyway (iii) Cameras on launches SpaceX carries out for government don't actually need permits anyway, which probably applies to a lot of SpaceX launches
So I'm not sure what gives you the confidence to confidently assert that it's "more likely" the precise opposite happened?
I mean, the only evidence we've got is an article which quite clearly states that (i) SpaceX were the ones who contacted NOAA (ii) NOAA did not contact SpaceX regarding other launches, say it was SpaceX's responsibility to contact them and they don't think they have the resources to go chasing unlicensed remote sensing companies anyway (iii) Cameras on launches SpaceX carries out for government don't actually need permits anyway, which probably applies to a lot of SpaceX launches
So I'm not sure what gives you the confidence to confidently assert that it's "more likely" the precise opposite happened?
You are conveniently leaving out the bit from TFA that states that NOAA only recently started to enforce this particular part of their charter.
That is why SpaceX contacted them. If they had not and they had launched without obtaining permission and streamed the footage there would have been a nice 'gotcha' moment and they tried to avoid that.
> Cameras on launches SpaceX carries out for government don't actually need permits anyway.
So what's the point on restricting them on other launches? That proves this whole thing is high grade bullshit.
That is why SpaceX contacted them. If they had not and they had launched without obtaining permission and streamed the footage there would have been a nice 'gotcha' moment and they tried to avoid that.
> Cameras on launches SpaceX carries out for government don't actually need permits anyway.
So what's the point on restricting them on other launches? That proves this whole thing is high grade bullshit.
My fault, I read it incorrectly.
No problem. It's a pretty messed up article to begin with.
First they state that NOAA only recently started enforcing this, then they talk about SpaceX applying belatedly and finally there is the whole confusion about the bit where NOAA's charter only comes into play when they reach orbit, which removes most of the reasons they could be worried about in the first place.
First they state that NOAA only recently started enforcing this, then they talk about SpaceX applying belatedly and finally there is the whole confusion about the bit where NOAA's charter only comes into play when they reach orbit, which removes most of the reasons they could be worried about in the first place.
I read most of the relevant sections of the document, and there are good reasons for regulating remote sensing systems. I'm fairly familiar with remote sensing systems (SAR, scatterometry, etc) and I'm most interested in reasons why it makes sense to classify the cameras SpaceX stuck to the side of the rocket as remote sensing systems. While technically accurate according the definition provided in the law, it seems pretty dumb. The law even specifically states that handheld cameras don't count, so the distinction apparently comes down to whether there is a person up there to hold a camera that is easily "hand held" size.
I noticed the regulation says "remote sensing system" - does that mean SpaceX needs a license to record the video?
Broadcasting, at least to me, is not "sensing" - by the time images are broadcast, the "sensing" has already happened (even if by mere microseconds).
Broadcasting, at least to me, is not "sensing" - by the time images are broadcast, the "sensing" has already happened (even if by mere microseconds).
Strictly speaking sensing is the act of making a reading from a sensor, the fact that they transmit the video back to the earth already seems to be in violation (since that could be intercepted and since SpaceX apparently does continue to have access to the feed).
So it's nothing to do with recording.
So it's nothing to do with recording.
> (5) Ensure that unenhanced data collected by licensed private remote sensing space systems concerning the territory of any country are made available to the government of that country upon its request, as soon as such data are available and on reasonable commercial terms and conditions as appropriate;
#5: The forign policy / state dept / military parts of the US govt want to minimize potential risk of domestic US remote-sensing companies accidentally or deliberatly antagonizing a foreign government... seems prima facie reasonable.
To gain leverage during diplomatic negotiations, a foreign power could take the position that one of our "so-called" private civillian satellite companies was actually a front for a state intelligence operation. It would be difficult for state dept to provide evidence to the contrary if they didn't already have contacts with each private space company.
Is anyone aware of a diplomatic complaint ever being made along these lines? Maybe in the cablegate archives?
#5: The forign policy / state dept / military parts of the US govt want to minimize potential risk of domestic US remote-sensing companies accidentally or deliberatly antagonizing a foreign government... seems prima facie reasonable.
To gain leverage during diplomatic negotiations, a foreign power could take the position that one of our "so-called" private civillian satellite companies was actually a front for a state intelligence operation. It would be difficult for state dept to provide evidence to the contrary if they didn't already have contacts with each private space company.
Is anyone aware of a diplomatic complaint ever being made along these lines? Maybe in the cablegate archives?
well the danger here is that if US regulation becomes to burdensome then some other country will step up and other countries may just flat out ignore it. Which means an exciting and upcoming area of technology may eventually move off shore and hopefully one day off planet.
so effort will need to be made by pioneers in this area to shape US policy so it achieves the needed goals without being oppressive enough to shift to other sites
so effort will need to be made by pioneers in this area to shape US policy so it achieves the needed goals without being oppressive enough to shift to other sites
It seems to me that you're arguing broadly that space regulation, generally speaking, could, in principle, be good. I agree with that.
Now, do you have any arguments in favor of the regulatory restrictions on SpaceX lauch videos?
Now, do you have any arguments in favor of the regulatory restrictions on SpaceX lauch videos?
No, not really. SpaceX's usage is obviously far too trivial to trigger any of the concerns motivating the regulation.
BUT: Exhaustively specifying all possibilities in law is rather impossible, and any attempt would make legal texts even more verbose. Giving an agency the leeway to waive regulations on a case-by-case basis may however appear (or be) arbitrary. Although I suspect the latter may still happen once the agency has had more than three days to think about it.
Otherwise, it may just be preferable for SpaceX to spend a few hours submitting the application. It's really not rocket science.
BUT: Exhaustively specifying all possibilities in law is rather impossible, and any attempt would make legal texts even more verbose. Giving an agency the leeway to waive regulations on a case-by-case basis may however appear (or be) arbitrary. Although I suspect the latter may still happen once the agency has had more than three days to think about it.
Otherwise, it may just be preferable for SpaceX to spend a few hours submitting the application. It's really not rocket science.
> Your narrow-minded anger is ill-informed.
Really?
Really?
> "Extremely small office" is a typical public sector reply in the PIIGS in order to get a bribe to 'make things move faster'.
I suggest to stop using "PIIGS" as is a pejorative term to refer south European countries.
I suggest to stop using "PIIGS" as is a pejorative term to refer south European countries.
Agreed, but one of the Is is not south
Good grief this whole thing is stupid.
1) The idea that an NOAA regulation is going to stop somebody from acting militarily against the US. (A Chinese military command somewhere: "Sir! We cannot point our spy satellites at the earth yet because the US NOAA hasn't issued us a license yet!" "DRATS!")
2) The idea that somebody doing something nefarious would even be sharing this information with anybody.
3) The idea that any of this should be covering what is clearly a utility meant to display the effectiveness of a stage seperation.
This whole thing sounds like an April fool's joke to me.
1) The idea that an NOAA regulation is going to stop somebody from acting militarily against the US. (A Chinese military command somewhere: "Sir! We cannot point our spy satellites at the earth yet because the US NOAA hasn't issued us a license yet!" "DRATS!")
2) The idea that somebody doing something nefarious would even be sharing this information with anybody.
3) The idea that any of this should be covering what is clearly a utility meant to display the effectiveness of a stage seperation.
This whole thing sounds like an April fool's joke to me.
I think the idea is more that the regulation will stop private U.S. companies from acting militarily against other countries. E.g., the U.S. has a treaty with Israel that forbids publishing high-resolution satellite imagery of Israel, and one of the functions of the licensing system is to implement that treaty.
No entity should be able to license or control broadcasting of the Earth. Whoever said it made them wince, I am also in a state of wincing.
We should attack the problem from the other direction, and for entities without special exemptions, require proof of consent from any identifiable people and organizations whose activity can be discerned in the recordings they retain or make commercial use of.
The public interest would appear to outweigh the narrow rights of the licensing office here.
And it's not as if we don't have hours of footage from those places at the same resolution already so whatever horse they're trying to keep in the barn has already bolted.
And it's not as if we don't have hours of footage from those places at the same resolution already so whatever horse they're trying to keep in the barn has already bolted.
> The public interest would appear to outweigh the narrow rights of the ....
If only that was ever used to make regulation. We might have a decent copyright law by now in the US. I still blame Micky Mouse and Disney for all bad copy right law.
If only that was ever used to make regulation. We might have a decent copyright law by now in the US. I still blame Micky Mouse and Disney for all bad copy right law.
I think that that is better explained by the power of money in American politics than anything else. On another note, copyright laws in the rest of the world aren't that much better which means that even that is only a partial explanation at best.
But I take your point that public interest is rarely the thing foremost on politicians minds when they create their laws.
But I take your point that public interest is rarely the thing foremost on politicians minds when they create their laws.
>And it's not as if we don't have hours of footage from those places at the same resolution already so whatever horse they're trying to keep in the barn has already bolted.
That would suggest that public interest would not outweigh the rights of the licensing holders.
That would suggest that public interest would not outweigh the rights of the licensing holders.
No, that suggests it doesn't matter at all.
I don't understand all the "Let's assume this law is very good in most cases" sentiment here. You can assume anything you want about government, but I will not assume competence or good intent, and I think if you did more historical research you wouldn't either.
Come on, this is the kind of crap that fuels flat earthers.
Which is another way of saying "this is some evidence in favour of the theory that the earth is actually flat and the government is trying to hide it".
[deleted]
Gin and poor education fuels flat-earthers. Anything can be made into a conspiracy theory with only minimal effort.
Seems to me the quick solution would be to grant a blanket exemption based on the resolution of surface features.
The US owns the earth now? What a croc of shit.
No, the US regulates US-based companies, just like in any other field. This includes making the ability to conduct large scale surveillance of the earth's surface subject to license.
> No, the US regulates US-based companies, just like in any other field. This includes making the ability to conduct large scale surveillance of the earth's surface subject to license.
I wonder how that comports with this limitation on the U.S.: ‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …’ Seems pretty cut-and-dried to me that if they launched the camera, they have a right to publish the photos.
I wonder how that comports with this limitation on the U.S.: ‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …’ Seems pretty cut-and-dried to me that if they launched the camera, they have a right to publish the photos.
Why don't you try your theory about it being impossible to prohibit photos/videos by wandering into a military facility with a camera and explaining to the angry men with guns that they can't legally interfere with you?
I'll wait for you to report back on how that goes.
I'll wait for you to report back on how that goes.
[deleted]
I don't think many people would argue collection of multispectral and radar images of the earth from space for commercial distribution was what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they talked about freedom of speech. Legal restrictions on photography, particularly commercial photography, came before satellites.
Weird how HN spends most of its time complaining about digital panopticons, CCTV etc and then is up in arms about the basic principle of regulating companies increasingly moving towards selling the ability to discreetly take images or video of any area at any time. (I can see the logic in excepting low res SpaceX launch videos from that and doubt they'd have had any problems at all if they'd applied for a license in time, but you draft regulations for the rules not the exceptions, especially when there's only a handful of companies to license)
Weird how HN spends most of its time complaining about digital panopticons, CCTV etc and then is up in arms about the basic principle of regulating companies increasingly moving towards selling the ability to discreetly take images or video of any area at any time. (I can see the logic in excepting low res SpaceX launch videos from that and doubt they'd have had any problems at all if they'd applied for a license in time, but you draft regulations for the rules not the exceptions, especially when there's only a handful of companies to license)
> large scale
1080p wide-angle is not quite large scale in terms of space imagery
1080p wide-angle is not quite large scale in terms of space imagery
What about 4K? 8K? What about a big honking lens strapped to the side?
If the agency requires everyone to get a license, they can filter out the people doing shady stuff.
Granted there's not many people sending rockets into LEO.
If the agency requires everyone to get a license, they can filter out the people doing shady stuff.
Granted there's not many people sending rockets into LEO.
It's probably not very effective at all at stopping people doing shady stuff.
The people doing shady stuff are either the US government (who will give themselves permission) or other country's governments (who won't even ask permission). So what exactly does it prevent?
The people doing shady stuff are either the US government (who will give themselves permission) or other country's governments (who won't even ask permission). So what exactly does it prevent?
Hey, (almost) everyone on Star Trek speaks english, with an American accent (apart this perfect human being called Jean Luc Piccard!!)(or with slight Russian accent). Even the Ferenghi!
That should have made it clear for you :)
That should have made it clear for you :)
They actually don’t. It’s explained in several TNG episodes as being a facade created by the “universal translator” plot device.
> It’s explained in several TNG episodes
And TOS, for that matter.
And TOS, for that matter.
Actually, the accent is more Polish than Russian (or so I've heard).
Government over-regulation at its finest. I can certainly understand the FCC being involved here to manage bandwidth allocations, but a license to send pictures is ridiculous and is walking into murky water with First Amendment rights.
I bet this law exists because the military asked for it. Spy satellites have military importance, so they want control over anything that looks even slightly like a spy satellite.
Maybe, but I don't think so. This seems like a silly regulation someone at this "extremely small" office (or the NOAA I suppose) came up with that slipped its way onto the books one way or another.
Whatever it "seems" like to you, it is a law passed by congress and signed by the president.
That doesn't necessarily mean the president or anyone in congress actually read it.
The latest spending bill was 2,232 pages of allocations, nuance, and a wide variety of different laws and rules that have nothing to do with spending. How many members of congress do you think read this bill and actually considered each item in it before voting on it?
Here [1] are some statistics on how much legislation congress churns through each year. The last congress, in their 2 years, enacted 329 different laws, passed 708 different resolutions, and also dealt with a whopping 10,334 other pieces of miscellaneous legislation. And congress also has relatively few legislative days where this is taken care of. The house averages around 140 legislative days a year, the senate around 160.
And congressmen spend the vast majority of their time not dealing with legislation, but instead fundraising for their next election, which involves "donors" "lobbying" them on the issues that matter to them. It's a great system, isn't it?
[1] - https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics
Here [1] are some statistics on how much legislation congress churns through each year. The last congress, in their 2 years, enacted 329 different laws, passed 708 different resolutions, and also dealt with a whopping 10,334 other pieces of miscellaneous legislation. And congress also has relatively few legislative days where this is taken care of. The house averages around 140 legislative days a year, the senate around 160.
And congressmen spend the vast majority of their time not dealing with legislation, but instead fundraising for their next election, which involves "donors" "lobbying" them on the issues that matter to them. It's a great system, isn't it?
[1] - https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics
Sigh, the flatearthers are going to love this one.
This is really, really dumb.
I find the suggestion that the Government was pissed off at Elon for launching his roadster to Mars oddly compelling. SpaceX does make a lot of the "entrenched" space capability look bad in comparison.
That said, I think a simple lawsuit would settle this issue and help give clarity to the powers granted the NOAA. I expect a number of Cubesat experiments might get caught up in this escalation of power as well. And while you're more likely to get someone to say that a cubesat with a re-purposed 10MP cell phone camera is a "remote sensing" camera I think it would be difficult to convince a judge and jury such cameras were a threat to the national security, regardless of where they were pointed.
That said, I think a simple lawsuit would settle this issue and help give clarity to the powers granted the NOAA. I expect a number of Cubesat experiments might get caught up in this escalation of power as well. And while you're more likely to get someone to say that a cubesat with a re-purposed 10MP cell phone camera is a "remote sensing" camera I think it would be difficult to convince a judge and jury such cameras were a threat to the national security, regardless of where they were pointed.
TFW you blew your entire CGI budget on a car commercial
But why does the license exist?
The NOAA statement on the issue seems to imply that the rule exists because the government wants a measure of control over images of the Earth's surface for "national security" reasons.
[0] http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-statement-on-todays-b...
[0] http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-statement-on-todays-b...
What's the point? Doesn't China, Russia, and EU have a lot of sats and what if they decide to broadcast like SpaceX? US will threaten them?
The whole point is to prevent giving away information to other countries who don't have it already, not some conspiracy to prevent Americans from seeing the earth. Other countries are free to broadcast their data to the world if they like. The US will probably learn nothing new about the Earth but would learn of at least some chacteristics of other country's satellite tech
> prevent giving away information to other countries who don't have it already
Pretty easy for a nation-state to launch a surveillance satellite with much better optics, I imagine.
Pretty easy for a nation-state to launch a surveillance satellite with much better optics, I imagine.
I suppose nation-states aren't the only ones who'd like information on US military bases/infrastructure/"nationalsecurityinterests", but I honestly think it's irrelevant. If we were discussing serious imaging systems then sure, but it's pretty clear that a webcam isn't going to give anyone any meaningful information.
The point is that you don't hand out the license trivially. Yes, spacex is just discussing this in the context of a glorified webcam, but webcasts aren't their only business. Such a license needs to consider the whole business. Now the NOAA perhaps should consider a type of limited license, but they can't assume the only imagery technology spacex is interested in is webcams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_first_orbital_laun...
This is a list of nations that have managed to put something in orbit. It contains 10 nations, and the ESA. The vast majority of nations do not have the capability.
This is a list of nations that have managed to put something in orbit. It contains 10 nations, and the ESA. The vast majority of nations do not have the capability.
That's a list of nations capable of launching stuff on their own. Compare with this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite#First_satellites_of_...
Non-space-capable countries do routinely put their payload on the rockets of countries with launch capability (though I guess then it can't be an obvious spy satellite).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite#First_satellites_of_...
Non-space-capable countries do routinely put their payload on the rockets of countries with launch capability (though I guess then it can't be an obvious spy satellite).
And let me guess, they also run this through the respective Russian, Chinese, Japanese, French, Spanish, 'NOAAs' so that nobody spies on anyone's secret areas (51? ;).
Reading :
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html
I'm guessing:
* They don't want the satellite taking and selling photos of secret US government stuff (or Israel or other areas that would cause the US government grief). * They want to make sure the satellite doesn't crash or otherwise cause problems for which the US would be liable.
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html
I'm guessing:
* They don't want the satellite taking and selling photos of secret US government stuff (or Israel or other areas that would cause the US government grief). * They want to make sure the satellite doesn't crash or otherwise cause problems for which the US would be liable.
There are privacy implications for air or space based surveillance of the Earth (rather more so for high resolution photography of specific areas of land than video in which the earth is merely a backdrop, but drawing that distinction isn't necessarily trivial). The solution the United States has adopted is to regulate the extent to which commercial entities are entitled to distribute such imagery and video; licensing who is entitled to distribute such images forms part of that regime.
> drawing that distinction isn't necessarily trivial
Meters per pixel. If it's >20, just give it blanket permission.
Meters per pixel. If it's >20, just give it blanket permission.
That's probably the most practical option, but even that distinction isn't necessarily straightforward in a launch video (and even the sort of 20m multispectral imagery that's freely made available to the entire world by multiple providers including NASA becomes more of a possible privacy/security issue if remote sensing operators were to permanently point their cameras at the same location). The regulation was likely drafted with a view to the future in an era where all satellite based EO had low spatial resolutions and processing techniques were in their infancy anyway.
> even that distinction isn't necessarily straightforward in a launch video
From what I understand the trouble point is when they hit orbit, and by then they're plenty far away to meet the cutoff.
From what I understand the trouble point is when they hit orbit, and by then they're plenty far away to meet the cutoff.
Because everything on the surface of the Earth is visible from space, and some people have put things on the surface of the Earth that they would prefer certain other people not know about.
If the license is required to sense remotely, the issuing agency can do some research, then tell the licensee "you cannot broadcast, transmit, or record for later transmission images taken from T+5:53:11 to T+5:56:43". And then they check the flight path, and that's when the vehicle will be directly over one of the Aleutian islands. The engineers shrug their shoulders, and program a 4-minute blackout into the cameras.
And the crew in Alaska can then go around throwing camouflage netting over everything, and inflate the decoys, and not do any work outside, during any times that an object known or suspected to have imaging devices on it passes overhead.
It's a temporary measure, as the superpowers continue to move their most important secret facilities to camouflaged, submarine, or underground facilities. But it won't be long before someone's cubesat with commercial-grade camera unwittingly images something it shouldn't, and the Men in Black visit the owner with a DoD order to classify all their electronic equipment as "Top Secret", with a "no-foreign" endorsement. It would all be confiscated, examined, scrubbed, declassified, and returned after a few months.
The license is likely so that the keepers of the secrets can know the imaging capabilities of some of the objects they track in orbit, and maybe get some cooperation from the owners.
If the license is required to sense remotely, the issuing agency can do some research, then tell the licensee "you cannot broadcast, transmit, or record for later transmission images taken from T+5:53:11 to T+5:56:43". And then they check the flight path, and that's when the vehicle will be directly over one of the Aleutian islands. The engineers shrug their shoulders, and program a 4-minute blackout into the cameras.
And the crew in Alaska can then go around throwing camouflage netting over everything, and inflate the decoys, and not do any work outside, during any times that an object known or suspected to have imaging devices on it passes overhead.
It's a temporary measure, as the superpowers continue to move their most important secret facilities to camouflaged, submarine, or underground facilities. But it won't be long before someone's cubesat with commercial-grade camera unwittingly images something it shouldn't, and the Men in Black visit the owner with a DoD order to classify all their electronic equipment as "Top Secret", with a "no-foreign" endorsement. It would all be confiscated, examined, scrubbed, declassified, and returned after a few months.
The license is likely so that the keepers of the secrets can know the imaging capabilities of some of the objects they track in orbit, and maybe get some cooperation from the owners.
Functionally, these all seem very similar:
SpaceX broadcasting from a camera attached to a Rocket
Boeing broadcasting from a camera attached to a Plane
Toyota broadcasting from a camera attached to a SUV
James Cameron broadcasting from a camera attached to a Submarine
SpaceX broadcasting from a camera attached to a Rocket
Boeing broadcasting from a camera attached to a Plane
Toyota broadcasting from a camera attached to a SUV
James Cameron broadcasting from a camera attached to a Submarine
Toyota would have a hard time driving their SUV to Area 51
It would probably not go over well if James Cameron broadcasted from directly under an American aircraft carrier, or next to a nuclear submarine
SpaceX put a camera up in orbit against the law. I suspect that NOAA was willing to look the other way when they did something borderline (2nd stage cameras), but now that they've pushed it too far they're not willing to cut them as much slack
It would probably not go over well if James Cameron broadcasted from directly under an American aircraft carrier, or next to a nuclear submarine
SpaceX put a camera up in orbit against the law. I suspect that NOAA was willing to look the other way when they did something borderline (2nd stage cameras), but now that they've pushed it too far they're not willing to cut them as much slack
This license is probably in place to cover situations where high resolution cameras in commercial satellites could compete with military surveillance ones.
Sounds like they needed an excuse to cover up something.
Couldn't they just get someone in the office with a ham license to become the "broadcaster" and do without all the NOAA license shenanigans?
let me guess, ULA filed a complaint?
It's because SpaceX is becoming "too successful" at what it does.
Elon on the final level of Flat Earth Adventures.
This kindof puts that law requiring a copyright license for taking photos of the Eiffel tower into perspective. You now need a license for taking photos of... the Earth?
So SpaceX either knew about the regulation and ignored it (without clarifying with the regulatory body if it applied to them), or didn't know about the regulation. I'm not sure which is worse but both are bad.
I think SpaceX is doing cool, groundbreaking stuff, but they should be following the rules.
I think SpaceX is doing cool, groundbreaking stuff, but they should be following the rules.
It's such a nonsense application of the rule that the people doing the regulation didn't even think about it for at least 8 years (https://youtu.be/fshVNOJ-Wtg?t=296) so it's hard to fault SpaceX.
It's also an extremely good bet that NOAA also recently got an application from ULA. (https://youtu.be/FUJ9Dtyiclw?t=213)
It's also an extremely good bet that NOAA also recently got an application from ULA. (https://youtu.be/FUJ9Dtyiclw?t=213)
Unless there's a licensing process that makes the agency money or shows up in the numbers they show their bosses (like in this case), no regulatory agency in my experience is ever willing to clarify if something is legal or not. Their only response is to hire legal advice, and they'll take legal action against you if you're wrong. It's stupid that just knowing if the government will let you do something often requires paying money to a private business licensed by that same government for an educated prediction that you could very well still end up being responsible for if it's wrong.
It's impossible to keep track of all the laws and regulations one must follow. More gets printed every week than anyone could glance through, let alone read. The archives are even more impossible.
With an effort, a large organization can be maybe probably mostly in the clear, but no amount of budget and perfectionism can get anyone definitely in the clear who is actually doing something.
With an effort, a large organization can be maybe probably mostly in the clear, but no amount of budget and perfectionism can get anyone definitely in the clear who is actually doing something.
SpaceX applied for these licenses in the past, so someone knew about them. Either they lost some institutional knowledge due to attrition or miscommunication, they didn't think the law applied to these particular cameras, or someone thought they could get away with it.
Or it could be that they simply found out and would not like to risk being willfully non-compliant.
No no-one should be following ridiculous rules if they can safely ignore them.
What rules are they not following?
The definition in the law even specifically excludes "Small, hand-held cameras shall not be considered remote sensing space system," i guess so that astronauts don't have to get a license 12 months before every mission. SpaceX cameras providing the video for the webcasts are certainly small and could be "handheld," so it seems to come down to the fact that no human is up there with them.
Remote sensing systems are a thing, and there are good reasons to regulate them. Tiny cameras stuck to the side of SpaceX rockets should not be classified as "remote sensing systems." When I think of remote sensing satellites, Landsat series and friends come to mind, not an off the shelf camera stuck on the side of a rocket.