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

51–60 of 139 posts

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

#51

Post by grigjd3 »

some_random wrote: post #39
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.

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.

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

#53

Post by jerkstate »

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.

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

#54

Post by alistairSH »

twtw wrote: post #44
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 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…

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).

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

#55

Post by crististm »

jerkstate wrote: post #53

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.

Or it could be that they simply found out and would not like to risk being willfully non-compliant.

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

#56

Post by mkirklions »

twtw wrote: post #49

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 ev…

When you fail at your job, you can always complain about something.

These are excuses and attempts to get press. Nothing more.

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

#57

Post by notahacker »

kop316 wrote: post #50
jacquesm wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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

#58

Post by jacquesm »

kop316 wrote: post #50
jacquesm wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

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

#59

Post by twtw »

mkirklions wrote: post #56
twtw wrote: post #49

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 ev…

When you fail at your job, you can always complain about something. 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?

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

#60

Post by JustSomeNobody »

twtw wrote: post #49

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 ev…

> 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.

Post reply on HN