Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license

cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 139 posts

Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license

#11

Post by Zardoz84 »

HenryBemis wrote: post #5
piker wrote: post #3

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…

"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 so…

> "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.

Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license

#12

Post by HenryBemis »

pmorici wrote: post #4
msl09 wrote: post #2

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...

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? ;).

Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license

#13

Post by a012 »

pmorici wrote: post #4
msl09 wrote: post #2

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...

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?

Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license

#16

Post by notahacker »

jnamaya wrote: post #7

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.

Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license

#17

Post by jacquesm »

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.

Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license

#18

Post by IAmEveryone »

HenryBemis wrote: post #5
piker wrote: post #3

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…

"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 so…

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...

Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license

#19

Post by oh_sigh »

a012 wrote: post #13
pmorici wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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
Post reply on HN