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

31–40 of 139 posts

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

#31

Post by bpicolo »

oh_sigh wrote: post #19
a012 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#33

Post by jacquesm »

IAmEveryone wrote: post #30
ckocagil wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 wi…

> 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…

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.

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

#34

Post by jacquesm »

baldfat wrote: post #25
jacquesm wrote: post #17

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.

> 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.

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.

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

#35

Post by jcranmer »

HenryBemis wrote: post #10
jnamaya wrote: post #7

The US owns the earth now? What a croc of shit.

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 :)

Actually, the accent is more Polish than Russian (or so I've heard).

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

#36

Post by bitcurious »

jacquesm wrote: post #17

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.

That would suggest that public interest would not outweigh the rights of the licensing holders.

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

#37

Post by some_random »

TorKlingberg wrote: post #32

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.

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

#38

Post by bitcurious »

bpicolo wrote: post #31
oh_sigh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#39

Post by some_random »

bpicolo wrote: post #31
oh_sigh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#40

Post by kop316 »

jacquesm wrote: post #33
IAmEveryone wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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…

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."

Post reply on HN