SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 2:43 PM UTC

notahacker wrote: post #88

jacquesm wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 we…

> Quite why you think it should be incumbent on NOAA to breach the law on their behalf I have no idea.

Because up to that point nobody had shown any good reason why the license was required in the first place and 10's of launches had been done without the license. This is too little, too late and doesn't serve anybody.

No harm was ever done by transmitting low resolution images from space.

Anyway, enough indents.

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

#92

Post by alexandercrohde » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 2:45 PM UTC

I don't understand all the "Let's assume this law is very good in most cases" sentiment here. You can assume anything you want about government, but I will not assume competence or good intent, and I think if you did more historical research you wouldn't either.

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

#93

Post by blhack » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 2:51 PM UTC

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 that any of this should be covering what is clearly a utility meant to display the effectiveness of a stage seperation.

This whole thing sounds like an April fool's joke to me.

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

#94

Post by kop316 » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 2:59 PM UTC

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…

> Paper should serve the people, not the other way around.

I definitely agree with you on that, and I agree that the government can be over burdensome and take too long. However, NOAA is the one charged with enforcing the law on it, they did not write the law. If you disagree with the law, I encourage you to write your congressman and see what it takes to change the law.

I think there is a fundamental disagreement on the intent on what NOAA is doing. I personally don't see it as hostile, nor do I think they are flexing their muscle.

If it was true that SpaceX only came to them 3 days before the launch, I think that is unfair to NOAA to ask for a license so quick. If they did follow the 120 day policy and NOAA didn't give them a license, then the fault is on NOAA.

What I find odd is NOAA's own statement says: "SpaceX applied and received a license from NOAA that included conditions on their capability to live-stream from space."

So is SpaceX violating their license? I think there is much more at play when just what the article says. Personally, I have a feeling another government agency saw what SpaceX was doing, saw they didn't have a license, and NOAA got in trouble because they weren't enforcing that law, and now NOAA is caught in the cross fire.

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

#95

Post by ubernostrum » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 3:01 PM UTC

zeveb wrote: post #70

notahacker wrote: post #16

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.

> 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.

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

#96

Post by notahacker » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 3:02 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #84

notahacker wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 nee…

I am "conveniently" leaving it out because it is a vaguely worded "appears..." piece of journalese which contradicts the rest of the article and established fact. Nobody has disputed that SpaceX contacted NOAA first, there's no dispute that they process 40-odd applications every year, no dispute that the policy of licensing remote sensing has been in effect for a long time, amended more than once and that recent moves in the legislature (recent as in a couple of years ago, so SpaceX really had time to notice) have been proposals to relax it rather than to strengthen it.

And yeah, also no dispute that the government grants missions planned by its own agencies a remote sensing license - can't imagine why you would expect it to be otherwise tbh? But agreed, enough indents :-)

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

#97

Post by kop316 » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 3:02 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #87

kop316 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah this article is very confusing. I said it in an earlier comment, it wouldn't surprise me if another government agency (DoD, NSA, CIA) saw what SpaceX is doing, saw they didn't have a license, and got NOAA in trouble, and now they are trying to do their due diligence and got caught in a cross fire.

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

#98

Post by TallGuyShort » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 3:09 PM UTC

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

So it would be pretty silly for Russia to ban similar cameras for fear of state secrets being uncovered, right?

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

#99

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 3:10 PM UTC

kop316 wrote: post #97

jacquesm wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah this article is very confusing. I said it in an earlier comment, it wouldn't surprise me if another government agency (DoD, NSA, CIA) saw what SpaceX is doing, saw they didn't have a license, and got NOAA in trouble, and now they are trying to do their due diligence and got caught in a cross fire.

That's an interesting viewpoint and maybe explains some of the weirdness around this whole affair.

Even so, it is hard for me to imagine what DoD, NSA or CIA might have in terms of reasons why low resolution video transmission from space would be problematic, especially since for other launches the 'from orbit' videos are not deemed a problem and from where I'm sitting they are functionally identical and potentially more problematic (because they are government launches).

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

#100

Post by jonknee » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 3:23 PM UTC

MBCook wrote: post #86

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.

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.