61–70 of 139 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 a…
"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'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.
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…
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.
It's also an extremely good bet that NOAA also recently got an application from ULA. (https://youtu.be/FUJ9Dtyiclw?t=213)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Come on, this is the kind of crap that fuels flat earthers.
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.
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.