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

81–90 of 139 posts

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

#81

Post by kop316 »

jacquesm wrote: post #58
kop316 wrote: post #50

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…

> 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…

My fault, I read it incorrectly.

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

#83

Post by kirillseva »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #64
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…

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.

Just as US military satellites take pictures of Russian and Chinese facilities as well. Both can play this game

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

#84

Post by jacquesm »

notahacker wrote: post #80
jacquesm wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 anyw…

You are conveniently leaving out the bit from TFA that states that NOAA only recently started to enforce this particular part of their charter.

That is why SpaceX contacted them. If they had not and they had launched without obtaining permission and streamed the footage there would have been a nice 'gotcha' moment and they tried to avoid that.

> Cameras on launches SpaceX carries out for government don't actually need permits anyway.

So what's the point on restricting them on other launches? That proves this whole thing is high grade bullshit.

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

#85

Post by blhack »

twtw wrote: post #63
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Sure, I was thinking of this specific case only. If someone starts to use tiny cameras in a way such that they are actually useful for remote sensing, then by all means regulate them.

Why should this be regulated at all?

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

#86

Post by MBCook »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #64
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…

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’re not under the jurisdiction of a US agency.

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

#87

Post by jacquesm »

kop316 wrote: post #81
jacquesm wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

My fault, I read it incorrectly.

No problem. It's a pretty messed up article to begin with.

First they state that NOAA only recently started enforcing this, then they talk about SpaceX applying belatedly and finally there is the whole confusion about the bit where NOAA's charter only comes into play when they reach orbit, which removes most of the reasons they could be worried about in the first place.

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

#88

Post by notahacker »

jacquesm wrote: post #77
notahacker wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

> it would have been trivial to issue a 'provisional' license until the slow wheels of government could do their job.

I don't think it's ever "trivial" for a license-stamping body to make up a new kind of permit, particularly not over a three day period and when it's bodies like the Department of Defense they're cutting out of the picture.

Ultimately, if SpaceX wished to take the view that the existing law was not well drafted, not relevant to their particular filming, something they may have already breached without consequence and not in the US government's interest to pursue, they were perfectly entitled to take the risk of leaving the cameras on and seeing if anyone did anything about it. Quite why you think it should be incumbent on NOAA to breach the law on their behalf I have no idea.

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

#89

Post by logfromblammo »

msl09 wrote: post #2

But why does the license exist?

Because everything on the surface of the Earth is visible from space, and some people have put things on the surface of the Earth that they would prefer certain other people not know about.

If the license is required to sense remotely, the issuing agency can do some research, then tell the licensee "you cannot broadcast, transmit, or record for later transmission images taken from T+5:53:11 to T+5:56:43". And then they check the flight path, and that's when the vehicle will be directly over one of the Aleutian islands. The engineers shrug their shoulders, and program a 4-minute blackout into the cameras.

And the crew in Alaska can then go around throwing camouflage netting over everything, and inflate the decoys, and not do any work outside, during any times that an object known or suspected to have imaging devices on it passes overhead.

It's a temporary measure, as the superpowers continue to move their most important secret facilities to camouflaged, submarine, or underground facilities. But it won't be long before someone's cubesat with commercial-grade camera unwittingly images something it shouldn't, and the Men in Black visit the owner with a DoD order to classify all their electronic equipment as "Top Secret", with a "no-foreign" endorsement. It would all be confiscated, examined, scrubbed, declassified, and returned after a few months.

The license is likely so that the keepers of the secrets can know the imaging capabilities of some of the objects they track in orbit, and maybe get some cooperation from the owners.

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

#90

Post by Mononokay »

kirillseva wrote: post #83
bufferoverflow wrote: post #64

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.

Just as US military satellites take pictures of Russian and Chinese facilities as well. Both can play this game

I don't think anyone contested that...?
Post reply on HN