Come on, this is the kind of crap that fuels flat earthers.
Gin and poor education fuels flat-earthers. Anything can be made into a conspiracy theory with only minimal effort.
SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license
121–130 of 139 posts
Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license
#122I find the suggestion that the Government was pissed off at Elon for launching his roadster to Mars oddly compelling. SpaceX does make a lot of the "entrenched" space capability look bad in comparison.
That said, I think a simple lawsuit would settle this issue and help give clarity to the powers granted the NOAA. I expect a number of Cubesat experiments might get caught up in this escalation of power as well. And while you're more likely to get someone to say that a cubesat with a re-purposed 10MP cell phone camera is a "remote sensing" camera I think it would be difficult to convince a judge and jury such cameras were a threat to the national security, regardless of where they were pointed.
Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re not under the jurisdiction of a US agency.
Which makes it even more dumb, the people we don't want taking pictures do so at will while the people we don't mind taking pictures are banned.
It's also dumb because it gives them incentive to just move to another country that doesn't care.
Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license
#124It'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…
SpaceX just needs to make some silicone hands that hold the cameras and they'll be set.
Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license
#125Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> SpaceX has always been a very heavily marketed company. You should be skeptical whenever they get headlines.
I don't understand how SpaceX deserves any more skepticism than any other company's headlines at this point.
Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re not under the jurisdiction of a US agency.
Which makes it even more dumb, the people we don't want taking pictures do so at will while the people we don't mind taking pictures are banned.
I don't know about you, but Facebook is under US jurisdiction, and I'd rather they didn't launch a remote-sensing satellite without going through some regulatory hoops.
Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
They better as fuck not be : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talk... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty
Those have all either expired or weren't ratified, and the current treaty (New START) explicitly allows satellite monitoring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START
depends on the type of monitoring
Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
They better as fuck not be : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talk... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty
Since we're talking about cameras and not missiles, I ctrl+f'd for "picture" and "camera" on all of those links and didn't see any results. Do those treaties prohibit cameras?
depends on the camera, IR is pretty well forbidden
Re: SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license
#130Earlier 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.
The latest spending bill was 2,232 pages of allocations, nuance, and a wide variety of different laws and rules that have nothing to do with spending. How many members of congress do you think read this bill and actually considered each item in it before voting on it?
Here [1] are some statistics on how much legislation congress churns through each year. The last congress, in their 2 years, enacted 329 different laws, passed 708 different resolutions, and also dealt with a whopping 10,334 other pieces of miscellaneous legislation. And congress also has relatively few legislative days where this is taken care of. The house averages around 140 legislative days a year, the senate around 160.
And congressmen spend the vast majority of their time not dealing with legislation, but instead fundraising for their next election, which involves "donors" "lobbying" them on the issues that matter to them. It's a great system, isn't it?