Couldn't they just get someone in the office with a ham license to become the "broadcaster" and do without all the NOAA license shenanigans?
SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license
71–80 of 139 posts
Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
From TFA "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.
Given that it's publicly documented[1] that license approval involves coordination with (as a minimum) U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of State and U.S. Department of the Interior and at least 120 days should be allowed, and SpaceX chose to apply three days before a launch I'd have a hard time interpreting the fact the license was not granted in time as the fault of anyone other than SpaceX.
Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license
#73It's because SpaceX is becoming "too successful" at what it does.
Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
> large scale 1080p wide-angle is not quite large scale in terms of space imagery
What about 4K? 8K? What about a big honking lens strapped to the side? 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.
It's probably not very effective at all at stopping people doing shady stuff.
The people doing shady stuff are either the US government (who will give themselves permission) or other country's governments (who won't even ask permission). So what exactly does it prevent?
Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license
#75So 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.
No no-one should be following ridiculous rules if they can safely ignore them.
Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license
#76Earlier 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.
That doesn't necessarily mean the president or anyone in congress actually read it.
Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
From TFA "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.
Given that it's publicly documented[1] that license approval involves coordination with (as a minimum) U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of State and U.S. Department of the Interior and at least 120 days should be allowed, and SpaceX chose to apply three days before a launch I'd have a hard time interpreting the fact the license was not granted in time as the fault of anyone other than SpaceX. [1] https://w…
Given that a few weeks prior there appeared to be no problem it would have been trivial to issue a 'provisional' license until the slow wheels of government could do their job.
Keep in mind that these launches are doing more for American goodwill and image right now than anything else the administration is doing and from that perspective alone they are worth a bit of leniency.
120 days to approve something that has been going on for the better part of a decade might seem reasonable to you but it does not seem reasonable to me, there is a segment of the population that feels that yellow pieces of paper are more important than reality but I'm not a part of that segment. Paper should serve the people, not the other way around.
Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
Strictly speaking sensing is the act of making a reading from a sensor, the fact that they transmit the video back to the earth already seems to be in violation (since that could be intercepted and since SpaceX apparently does continue to have access to the feed).
So it's nothing to do with recording.
Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
>SpaceX says it is working to obtain a full license for its cameras to prevent having to shorten future launch webcasts.
SpaceX told NOAA that they were recording, NOAA didnt know, they are short staffed. This let SpaceX complain about 'not being able to record'.
Knowing that SpaceX is Elon's PR company for Tesla, its just another way for him to get in the news without doing anything.
I question if they were waiting on 'using this' for a bad mission. One where they didnt want to show the video, but still get press points.
SpaceX has always been a very heavily marketed company. You should be skeptical whenever they get headlines.
Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license
#80Earlier 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…
> 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…
> More likely: they just woke up to the possibility of showing the world they exist.
I mean, the only evidence we've got is an article which quite clearly states that (i) SpaceX were the ones who contacted NOAA (ii) NOAA did not contact SpaceX regarding other launches, say it was SpaceX's responsibility to contact them and they don't think they have the resources to go chasing unlicensed remote sensing companies anyway (iii) Cameras on launches SpaceX carries out for government don't actually need permits anyway, which probably applies to a lot of SpaceX launches
So I'm not sure what gives you the confidence to confidently assert that it's "more likely" the precise opposite happened?