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

41–50 of 139 posts

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

#41

Post by jacquesm »

kop316 wrote: post #40
jacquesm wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: "T…

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.

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

#42

Post by dragonwriter »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #29
HenryBemis wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

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.

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

#43

Post by TeMPOraL »

bitcurious wrote: post #38
bpicolo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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).

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

#44

Post by twtw »

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 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.

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

#45

Post by tantalor »

notahacker wrote: post #16
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.

> large scale

1080p wide-angle is not quite large scale in terms of space imagery

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

#47

Post by Shivetya »

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…

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

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

#48

Post by grigjd3 »

some_random wrote: post #37
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.

Whatever it "seems" like to you, it is a law passed by congress and signed by the president.

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

#49

Post by twtw »

It's a bit of a farce to classify these cameras stuck on the side of a rocket with horrible resolution and which are clearly not designed to effectively image the surface of the earth as "remote sensing systems."

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.

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

#50

Post by kop316 »

jacquesm wrote: post #41
kop316 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: "T…

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.

> 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.

Post reply on HN