111–120 of 139 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re not under the jurisdiction of a US agency.
What gives that agency jurisdiction over things in orbit? This whole thing seems really strange.
They don’t have that authority over things OTHER countries and their companies put into orbit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a farce that you need a license to take pictures at all. I'm sure Russian and Chinese satellites already take photos of the US military bases regularly.
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
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.
I guess abusing loopholes is the monopoly of authority.
Good grief this whole thing is stupid. 1) The idea that an NOAA regulation is going to stop somebody from acting militarily against the US. (A Chinese military command somewhere: "Sir! We cannot point our spy satellites at the earth yet because the US NOAA hasn't issued us a license yet!" "DRATS!") 2) The idea that somebody doing something nefarious would even be sharing this information with anybody. 3) The idea tha…
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. 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 publ…
Why don't you try your theory about it being impossible to prohibit photos/videos by wandering into a military facility with a camera and explaining to the angry men with guns that they can't legally interfere with you? I'll wait for you to report back on how that goes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Extremely small office" is a typical public sector reply in the PIIGS in order to get a bribe to 'make things move faster'. Or a piece of bureacracy in order to harass anyone we want, anytime we want. Also.. an "Act" on what to do in Space? Seriously? So when that thing flies over (e.g.) Japan should it follow Japan's laws? Or we only count the base location? In which case movie it to (e.g.) Greenland and problem so…
Your narrow-minded anger is ill-informed. 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. That's why there are rules on the size, structure, orbits, data sharing, disposal mechanisms and other features of s…
Now, do you have any arguments in favor of the regulatory restrictions on SpaceX lauch videos?
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…
#5: The forign policy / state dept / military parts of the US govt want to minimize potential risk of domestic US remote-sensing companies accidentally or deliberatly antagonizing a foreign government... seems prima facie reasonable.
To gain leverage during diplomatic negotiations, a foreign power could take the position that one of our "so-called" private civillian satellite companies was actually a front for a state intelligence operation. It would be difficult for state dept to provide evidence to the contrary if they didn't already have contacts with each private space company.
Is anyone aware of a diplomatic complaint ever being made along these lines? Maybe in the cablegate archives?
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.
With an effort, a large organization can be maybe probably mostly in the clear, but no amount of budget and perfectionism can get anyone definitely in the clear who is actually doing something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a farce that you need a license to take pictures at all. I'm sure Russian and Chinese satellites already take photos of the US military bases regularly.
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