41 ms·
FCC Accuses Stealthy Startup of Launching Rogue Satellites
- tomphoolery 9y agodoes the FCC actually have authority to govern space? because, you know, it's space... like what are they gonna do about it if the startup relocated to another country?
- dublinben 9y agoExactly. It's mentioned twice in the article that the FCC regulates this area, but these were launched from India. What jurisdiction does the US FCC have over a device launched into space from a foreign country?
- jimrandomh 9y agoLaunched from India, but made and owned by an American company. The FCC has jurisdiction over the satellites because it has jurisdiction over the satellites' owner.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> The FCC has jurisdiction over the satellites because it has jurisdiction over the satellites' owner Moreover, if those satellites smash into another country’s bird, the U.S. taxpayer is ultimately liable.
- adventured 9y agoThere's another step further there. Damage US military satellites - perhaps something necessary when it comes to national security - and the US Government can destroy you no matter who or where you are, short of being under the express protection of Beijing or Moscow.
- ceejayoz 9y agoIANAL, and a lot of this hasn't really been tested in the courts, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Liability_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Liability_Convention would seem to apply: "If State A caused the launch to happen, then State A is fully liable for damages that result from that space object." and "Whereas under most national legal systems an individual or a corporation may bring a lawsuit against another individual or another corporation, under the Liability Convention claims must be brought on the state level only."
- PeterisP 9y agoHasn't it been tested? It applied (only) once, but in that one case the responsible country (USSR) paid out the damages.
- ceejayoz 9y agoLiability was a lot clearer there - it was a Russian government satellite, launched by the Russians. Here we've got a satellite owned by an American company launched by an Indian rocket. The US is likely to say "the Indians shouldn't have launched it!" India's likely to say "it's an American satellite!"
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- kgwgk 9y agohttps://www.fcc.gov/general/international-bureau-satellite-division https://www.fcc.gov/general/international-bureau-satellite-d...
- dmitrygr 9y agosatellites will talk to something on the ground. Something owned by an a American company. So unless the satellites are TX-only, FCC has jurisdiction over the earth-located transmitters.
- tmuir 9y agoIf you follow any "authority" to its logical end, it largely boils down to a consent of the governed, or various degrees of coercion. Its the idea behind "fake it until you make it". People accept the "fake" long enough that either "fake" no longer accurately describes you, because you've bootstrapped in to legitimacy, or the accepting people aren't savvy/interested/powerful enough to discern your inauthenticity.
- mcguire 9y agoFor anyone interested, "Originating Communications Satellite Systems: The Interactions of Technological Change, Domestic Politics, and Foreign Policy" (https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4217/ch13.htm https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4217/ch13.htm) is an interesting (?) read on the early history communications satellite regulations. (I'm absolutely refusing to dig through the ITU's documents on the subject.) Another interesting read is Regulation and Licensing of Low-Earth-Orbit Satellites (https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1165&context=chtlj https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...), particularly sections 1 and 2. The bottom line is that international agreements through the ITU are responsible for frequency allocation (and presumably not damaging other people's stuff?) with the FCC being the pointy-end of the ITU and those treaties in the US. The FCC's authority in the area comes from the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Satellite_Act_of_1962 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Satellite_Act_o...), which has probably been modified beyond recognizability. [This is why we like network neutrality.]
- nxc18 9y agoOrganizations that willfully violate the law, especially in ways that pose threats to the lives and property of others, should be terminated. The US government granted them incorporation (or some similar status) and all the privileges that came with that. I wish the government would raise the cost of non-compliance by exercising it's right to revoke those privileges.
- oh_sigh 9y agoCouldn't this company just incorporate in Taiwan or India and keep doing what they are doing without any need for US approval?
- nxc18 9y agoThey could, and then it would be Taiwan or India's problem.
- duck 9y agoUntil one of their micro satellites hits one from the USA.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago... in which case India or Taiwan would on the hook for it, if found out.
- ben_w 9y agoIf I understand correctly (and that’s a big if given I’m not any kind of lawyer, never mind an international treaty specialist) the country which allowed the launch is responsible for the damages in situations like that. So no, it’s still their problem.
- cortesoft 9y agoOnly if the country has agreed to join that international treaty.
- JumpCrisscross 9y agoSwarm tried to get FCC approval and failed [1]. It then decided to go ahead its plans anyway. [1] https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=203152&x= https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=203152&x=.
- ceejayoz 9y agoI can't imagine that'll help in court.
- JumpCrisscross 9y agoI’ve been involved in the SmallSat space. This is a shitty thing the Swarm team has done. The American satellite regulatory regime is on the permissive end of the global spectrum. Wanton disregard for the law, like this, threatens that light-touch regime. (Finger wag at India, too. This should have been checked.)
- planteen 9y ago> Finger wag at India, too. This should have been checked Yeah, I'm surprised it wasn't. I've heard of dispensers on the ISS being zip tied shut and not cut until confirmation of license.
- asdsa5325 9y agoIt decided to go ahead with it's plans anyway in a different country. India doesn't need the FCC's approval. The fact that they are an American company doesn't matter. They did not violate any FCC regulations.
- mitchty 9y agoIf they want to operate in America, they'll have to care about what the FCC says. And since they're an American company, skirting around the FCC's approval could mean this startup is about to shutdown.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
- anfilt 9y agoHow does the FCC have jurisdiction? Maybe the radio broadcast in US territory. However, it was not even an American rocket? I am sorry, but not sure how the FCC has any jurisdiction here. However, I can see the issue with them being small and hard to and track, but still not sure how FCC is even the right entity to handle this. However, the US is also is weird for instance taxes are based of citizenship not were you live geographically. For instance if you have lived in Japan for 10 years you still would have to pay taxed back to the US.
- giarc 9y ago>The FCC is responsible for regulating commercial satellites, including minimizing the chance of accidents in space. Perhaps also important is that Swarm is an American company.
- craftyguy 9y agoAnd the FCC is a group chartered with regulating interstate communications, not with being orbital traffic cops.
- kosievdmerwe 9y agoAnd the secret service was originally tasked with protecting the monetary system. Organizations can expand their duties based on criteria other than their initial charter.
- olympus 9y agoThe FCC is charged with regulating communications of all distances, not just those crossing state lines. One of their primary missions is ensuring fair access to the wireless spectrum and keeping someone from jamming it and preventing others from communicating legally. Satellites must communicate to be effective, and satellites form a significant portion of our communications backbone. A rogue satellite operating over spectrum it isn't licensed for prevents other from using that spectrum, and a rogue satellite colliding with another satellite could cause debris and disable a bunch of other communications platforms. The FCC isn't being orbital traffic cops, it is doing its job. While the FCC has done a bunch of distasteful stuff regarding net neutrality recently, the folks taking actin agains Swarm are clearly in the right.
- fenwick67 9y agoHeadlines from the future: FCC Sues Moon for Unauthorized Transmissions of Visible Light
- dralley 9y agoWith the minor caveat that these are peices of metal being flung with reckless abandon at 17,000 miles per hour, in with the potential to cause a few hundred million dollars or a few billion dollars in damage if they hit the wrong thing, that the US government would hold some responsibility for.
- asdsa5325 9y agoI can't imagine the US government would hold responsibility for satellites deployed by India.
- dralley 9y agoBy an American company on an Indian rocket. Imagine if it hit a Chinese military satellite.
- 4ad 9y ago> with the potential to cause a few hundred million dollars or a few billion dollars in damage if they hit the wrong thing I'm surprised you didn't mention how can they cause another extinction event. They can't hit anything, these are too small and they will burn up in the atmosphere.
- dralley 9y agoI'm obviously talking about other satellites. Come on now.
- 4ad 9y agoThere are 29000 pieces of debris in LEO larger than a cubesat, and 670000 larger than one cubic centimeter but smaller than a cubesat[1]. While space junk is a problem, a couple of cubesats are not making any difference. Space is big, even LEO, enormously big. Small particles like engine exhaust are a problem (they can cause pitting, etc), not large objects. Or you know, China blowing up its own satellites is also a big problem[2]. [1] http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technology/Clean_Space/How_many_space_debris_objects_are_currently_in_orbit http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technolo... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_mi...
- dpflan 9y agoWhat companies or institutions are working on space debris analysis, location, tracking, and clean-up orchestration?
- rtkwe 9y agoThe US DoD maintains a very accurate account of objects above about a softball size. As for cleanup there's no one with a working system out there yet, I've seen quite a few different universities with early projects and some other ideas like ground based lasers but nothing is running that I've heard of. http://www.stratcom.mil/Media/Factsheets/Factsheet-View/Article/976414/usstratcom-space-control-and-space-surveillance/ http://www.stratcom.mil/Media/Factsheets/Factsheet-View/Arti...
- dpflan 9y agoThanks. I recall a presentation by researchers from MIT's Lincoln Lab discussion space object tracking as an area of research. > https://www.ll.mit.edu/ https://www.ll.mit.edu/
- ajnin 9y agoThe rate of satellite launches seems to be increasing at an ever-greater rate. With the advent of SpaceX, ISRO, and many new actors in the launch business space has never been so cheaply accessible. A runaway Kessler Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome), making space access for everyone problematic, seems now a real possibility, especially if a few bad actors launch junk into space with disregard for the safety of others. I'm not sure who should be responsible, but some coordination at the international level seems necessary to make sure this does not happen.
- wintermutesGhst 9y agoDo you have any links with more analysis on the problem today? Kessler syndrome is something I always see discussed, but I don't really have any idea how large/proximal the issue is. Is this a 10-years risk? 100? 1000? Purely hypothetical?
- techdragon 9y agoI have read a few hard analysis papers over the years and the gist is “it depends”. If things went bad, a worst case Kessler syndrome cascading failure. It could take upwards of a year or even more to actually impact the majority of space assets.p, remember “space is big”. And in addition to the time the events would take to unfold, the time they will continue to affect the availability of safe orbits will depend on the altitude of the orbits and the mean particle density. Less dense objects at lower orbits will be more affected by the thin air drag and decay sooner, gradually clearing the orbits over a period of years. Meanwhile the higher orbits will continue to have collisions and junk orbiting for varying degrees of forever. Overall the situation is best modelled with a pretty messy set of differential equations combining the differing rates of debris creation and decay by altitude alongside the rate of impact events that cause gradual reduction in the mean particle size and orbit. As for the risk, it’s sort of a chaotic breakdown threshold, hard to model. And unfortunately also hard to predictively put risk estimates on.
- wintermutesGhst 9y ago
- logfromblammo 9y agoThe FAA has jurisdiction over launches through US-controlled airspace. The FCC has jurisdiction over radio signals originating within the US. It is debatable whether a satellite in polar LEO is "within the US" for the purposes of jurisdiction, but even assuming that it is, the FCC can only theoretically control the use of its radios while over US territory. It has nothing to say whatsoever about whether the satellite can be there in orbit. Judge David Sentelle [to FCC]: "You can't regulate washing machines. You can't rule the world." So, not the first time the FCC has acted bigger than its britches. It seems likely there should be a UN mission for avoiding Kessler Syndrome and perhaps further regulating the tracking and traffic control of human-launched objects.
- planteen 9y ago> It has nothing to say whatsoever about whether the satellite can be there in orbit. I'm not an expert in space law, but I did work in the space industry for a while. A few things: The US government in general does have a say in whether certain technology can be in orbit. If you are making an Earth observing satellite, for instance, you need to get a permit. If my memory serves me right, I think it is the Department of Commerce. If you want to point above a certain accuracy, image above a certain resolution, etc. you are controlled by ITAR. Export that to India or discuss the technology with a non-US person? You are personally liable and can go to jail. That gets nailed in your head during ITAR training. There's nothing new about the FCC asking for orbital debris mitigation reports. It has been this way for at least a decade. And the ITU has regulated geo for a long time. I believe they defer to national agencies, which in this case is the FCC.
- greglindahl 9y agoThe UN already organized a treaty process which the US signed up to, making the US responsible for US companies like Swarm.
- pinewurst 9y agoUsing "outline.com" bypasses the article block.
- ChuckMcM 9y agoWow, I love this story. It raises so many intriguing issues in one small space. First, while the FCC clearly has US authority over spectrum, how is it that its charter includes satellite launches? Or conversely, if they SpaceBees never turn on did they violate the license? And on what basis does the FCC get to evaluate the risk of other things in orbit, isn't that NORAD's job? And what if this had been a startup in Bangalore or Mumbai, would they be getting crap from the FCC for launching the very same satellites? Now I understand the leverage the FCC can use with US based launch services, sort "Follow our rules and do what we say or we will have the FAA pull your launch permit." but that leverage doesn't really exist for foreign launch services. Heck the Russians might launch stuff like this just to irritate the FCC and tweak our noses. And it raises a whole different set of questions about cubesats. How closely are they inspected at Integration time? Is is possible to create a cubesat that looks and smells like it is doing one mission but is actually doing a different mission? What happens when someone launches an orbital spy satellite network? Not the one you would expect taking pictures of people's back yards, but a collection of satellites with large lenses that are looking up and over at the things coming up from the ground. Imagine an ion engine powered small sat that works its way up to GEO and snaps pictures of all the satellites it can find and beams those images down to earth. Let's say their quad systems stays under the weight of the typical cubesat limit of 1.33kg. That means they could launch 100,000+ satellites on a single F9 load. And while that would be silly (They would all be in a very similar orbit) it suggests how easily someone could (in theory) just "throw up" a covert microwave based communication network on a very small number of launches. These are definitely 21st century sorts of problems :-).
- throwawayjava 9y ago> And what if this had been a startup in Bangalore or Mumbai, would they be getting crap from the FCC for launching the very same satellites? Oh yes, it's a whole big thing! See: https://www.fcc.gov/international https://www.fcc.gov/international
- teej 9y agoPutting on my tin foil hat. > Is is possible to create a cubesat that looks and smells like it is doing one mission but is actually doing a different mission? You mean like Zuma which SpaceX launched and then was declared as "lost" but might have secretly been designed to look like it was lost? https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/9/16866806/spacex-zuma-mission-failure-northrop-grumman-classified-falcon-9-rocket https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/9/16866806/spacex-zuma-missi...
- alexandercrohde 9y agoI'm not sure how to feel about this. I know on the one hand that I feel communications in the US are an oligopopaly that hurts innovation and consumers. However, I'm not versed in whether satellite collision is a credible threat or merely an administrative hurdle to keep competition away from power-players. I also assume pretty much everybody else who is so upset on this thread is also unaware of how satellites and debris are tracked nationally/internationally, so I'm confused why opinions are so black-and-white.
- wmf 9y agocommunications in the US are an oligopopaly that hurts innovation and consumers That has nothing to do with it, since the FCC has issued plenty of licenses to companies that follow the rules.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mcguire 9y agoThis page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_collision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_collision) lists four "unintentional high-speed" collisions. I remember the furor over the Iridium 33 and the Fungyun FY-1C incidents.
- larkeith 9y agoI would say that the FCC's track record indicates that they genuinely believe the satellites to be a potential collision threat, given the large number of licenses they've provided to other space-based startups, and especially considering that they licensed Swarm's later 1U cubesat design.
- darepublic 9y agoWhat will happen when more and more private organizations gain the ability to launch things into orbit? It's pretty damn intriguing but also a can of worms.
- greglindahl 9y agoThey're required to get a license from their nation, even if they're private. So "what will happen" is what's currently happening: you have to get a license.
- Glyptodon 9y agoIt seems crazy to me that people with any kind of background or knowledge of satellites and aerospace would knowingly do this.
- wmf 9y agoPeople with background and knowledge gave us "too big to fail" systems that are overpriced by 10x.
- greglindahl 9y agoThat's a hilarious comment. The New Space industry doesn't want orbital debris, either.
- wmf 9y agoMy point is that the line between disruptive innovation and reckless crackpottery isn't always clear, and the solution to one reckless startup isn't to give up on innovation.
- greglindahl 9y agoAh. I didn't see anyone recommend giving up on innovation.
- planteen 9y agoTrying to make it in the space industry of all places with the government as an adversary is suicidal. In many commercial space ventures, the government (through its many arms) is often one of your largest customers.
- kylehotchkiss 9y agoThe linked FCC letter (https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=203152&x=. https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=203152&x=.) actually explained their rationale well (satellite too small to track with monitoring equipment so there was no way to warn other operators their satellite was about to be pummeled) and their idea to broadcast its location with GPS was not considered reliable enough. Still seems weird the FCC and not NASA or the Air Force makes this call. Isn't the FCC busy diving into rooms full of gold coins from Verizon?
- s73v3r_ 9y agoJust about everything sent up is going to want to transmit something down. And one of the FCC's reasons for existing is to try and minimize interference for broadcasters.
- jrochkind1 9y agoHow does "global positioning system" work in space anyway? Was "GPS" an analogy? Is it actually using signals from GPS satellite network to determine position?
- cpncrunch 9y agoIt would work the same way it does on earth. Spacebee satellites are at 500km and GPS satellites are at 20,000km, so it shouldn't be a problem getting a signal. You can even pick up GPS at higher orbits than 20000km, but it is more difficult: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/401315/gps-in-space/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/401315/gps-in-space/
- atommclain 9y agoI was under the impression that all non-military GPS devices did not work after certain thresholds such as speed were exceeded to prevent them from being used in missiles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinating_Committee_for_Multilateral_Export_Controls#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinating_Committee_for_Mul...
- walrus01 9y agoSatellite industry perspective here. I read the PDF copy of the FCC letter. It appears the FCC wants to ban them because the dimensions of each satellite are too small to accurately determine the TLEs of (two line elements) using the USAF/NORAD spacecraft tracking systems. There is nothing RF regulatory mentioned in the FCC's letter. Does this mean the FCC has stated a position that it has a problem with all cubesats of similar sized launched by all other nations? It is kind of weird that the FCC is in charge of orbital debris mitigation and avoidance. If the US feds intend to regulate satellite dimensions and orbits it needs to be done by some sort of aerospace experts.
- JorgeGT 9y agoFor what is worth, it appears that the TLEs are known and they have NORAD IDs: https://www.n2yo.com/database/?name=spacebee#results https://www.n2yo.com/database/?name=spacebee#results
- walrus01 9y agothe interesting question will be, if the satellite bus size is below the reliable detection threshold for space monitoring radar, if the TLEs will remain valid after they have experienced 6 months of atmospheric drag and expansion/contraction of the atmosphere with solar cycles. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/12/081216-earth-breathes.html https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/12/081216-eart... https://www.sciencenews.org/article/solar-wind-pushes-atmospheric-breathing https://www.sciencenews.org/article/solar-wind-pushes-atmosp... for example the GOCE satellite lasted longer than expected because its end-of-life period happened to coincide with a lower than usual amount of solar wind activity.
- mcguire 9y ago"The U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Special Operations Command has also expressed interest in using Swarm’s network for “tracking and geo-locating a large number of items on the ground and at sea.”" Hypothetically, could the DoD have given them the go-ahead without informing the FCC?
- Thorondor 9y agoA lot of people are wondering why the FCC has jurisdiction over this. The reason is that Swarm is operating an unauthorized experimental radio station on American soil. [0] That's always been illegal, as it should be. That shouldn't be the end of the discussion, though. Why didn't the FCC grant Swarm a license in the first place? Basically, the FCC claims the right to take action to minimize the danger of orbital debris created by US-operated satellites. [1] According to the FCC, this jurisdiction is granted by the Communications Act of 1934. [2] But that requires a very broad interpretation of the law. If promoting "the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest" lets the FCC make regulations about orbital debris, then surely it also applies to just about anything that has a radio. I don't like what Swarm did here -- I think they are legitimately endangering other satellites -- but I don't like the precedent the FCC is setting either. This seems like a classic case of bureaucratic overreach to me. Primary sources: [0] Swarm's license application: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/442_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=77426&license_seq=78134 https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/442_Print.cfm?mode=cu... [1] FCC experimental license rules, section 5.64: http://www.fr.com/files/Uploads/attachments/fcc/FCC_Part%205-Experimental-License-Rules.pdf http://www.fr.com/files/Uploads/attachments/fcc/FCC_Part%205... [2] "Mitigation of Orbital Debris", section (III)(A): https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-130A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-130A1.p...
- walrus01 9y agoThe FCC's rejection letter PDF is only concerned with the physical dimensions of the satellite and mentions nothing whatsoever about the RF characteristics of the satellite or their test earth stations.
- Thorondor 9y agoWhich is exactly my point. The FCC rejected Swarm's experimental license application in December 2017 (thus the letter) because they were worried about orbital debris. They should be focusing on the RF characteristics of the satellite and earth stations instead.
- aftbit 9y agoIsn't there a ton of space debris, ranging in size from mm to meters? A 1U cubesat is 10x10x11cm, and these satellites are listed as 10x10x2.8cm. What are the size bounds of the "danger zone" of items that are too small to spot reliably but still large enough to damage satellites? Would a 1cm³ / ~10 gram steel bolt be a problem? What about all of the chunks of debris created by previous space collisions and anti-satellite weapons? Also, it seems like either (A) the satellites are big enough to track using the space surveillance network, negating the FCC's complaint, or (B) the satellites are too small to see reliably, meaning that it would be hard to pin any collision on these satellites. Perhaps there is a gray area where we can observe it, but not reliably. I wonder how the FCC makes these decisions. The article mentioned that Swarm included passive radar reflectors, but that those will only help boost the radar cross-section for a small band of frequencies that are only used by a small fraction of the SSN. Ideally, our detection capability will improve over time and this will cease to be an issue. It would be a shame if no US company could ever launch a sub-1U satellite.
- walrus01 9y agoConsidering the limits of battery storage (in terms of Wh per kg, and Wh per cubic cm) and triple-junction GaAs PV cells. I question how useful a 1/4U cubesat can really be, if it needs to have both TT&C/bus management computer, some sort of Rx/TX radio to serve a purpose, possibly a single orientation gyro, some form of cold gas thruster for maneuvering, etc. Even with a 6U size cubesat you are very limited in terms of data rate throughput (in Mbps) you can achieve in bands above VHF/UHF. Simply due to the size limits of antenna you can fold down and the Shannon-Hartley limit.
- lwansbrough 9y agoThe Internet of Space Shit is coming and it's going to ruin your children's chances of space travel.
- givinguflac 9y agoSo the fcc can’t mandate title II because it lacks specific authority, but space debris is totally reasonable? Sigh.
- ct520 9y agoGreat, litter space more with IOT satellites..
- greggarious 9y agoWelcome to the cyberpunk future where companies shoot illegal satellites into space \m/
- debt 9y ago“Spaceflight has never knowingly launched a customer who has been denied an FCC license. It is the responsibility of our customers to secure all FCC licenses.” Best way to avoid saying you've launched illegal satellites.
- ineedasername 9y agoYeah that looked like a bit ol' admission of "We didn't check the licenses"
- known 9y agoIs this relevant to Chinese Tiangong-1 space station that is going to crash on Earth https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/09/tiangong-1-scientists-unsure-where-chinese-space-station-will-crash-to-earth https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/09/tiangong-1-s...
- notimetorelax 9y agoI wonder, why did FCC revoke the approval for the larger satellites? Seems really weird to punish that way. If their decisions have legal power, they should sue the company, but they must not revoke approval from a valid request. All that seems like a knee-jerk reaction.
- crb002 9y agoI'm most worried about F=MA. Micro satellites that are almost all fuel attaching to large pieces of space debris for extra mass and tug boating them into a collision course with military satellites. Large satellites are the new air craft carrier sized targets. Small satellites that can reboot after an EMP unharmed are the only option.
- piker 9y agoAside from all of the interesting jurisdictional points ITT, this piece reads like a media hit. If that's right, it might imply the founders are either confident they're in the clear legally, or looking to establish a precedent that they hope to use to defeat regulation.
- dfox 9y agoThere seems to be lot of questions about exactly why is this in FCC's jurisdiction. In fact the authority for authorizing commercial satellites and allocating their orbital positions is ITU, but you don't deal with ITU directly but through it's national member organisation, which in US in this case is FCC (for some other things you might want from ITU you would have to go through NIST or maybe even GSA).
- joshfraser 9y agoWhile I'm not advocating space trash, I'm having a hard time imaging a collision being even remotely possible given how tiny these things are and how massive space is.
- cmurf 9y agoThis is just a variation on big sky theory. Collision is unlikely, but not impossible. And if it happens, the cascading effect is a really disproportionate consequence. Also, you make a common mistake by emphasizing size while ignoring momentum. A quarter going 18000 mph hitting anything else in space is a problem, perhaps in particular the inability to predict the consequence when big sky theory doesn't come to the rescue.
- joshfraser 9y agoI understand that, but my point was the small size also decreases the odds of a collision happening in the first place.
- PeterisP 9y agoDoes it? If the orbits intersect, a large object is almost as likely to be hit by a flake of paint as a cubesat; and by a cubesat vs something twice as big. The difference is that a flake of paint will likely be just a dent, and a cubesat will destroy whatever it hits.
- Abishek_Muthian 9y agoThis could be a milestone which accelerated the process for updating space laws to govern commercial launches to space without compromising the right to do so and without jeopardizing the safety. It must be the role of consulting company in US to ensure that the satellites which were on-boarded adhered to the FCC protocols, as for Antrix Ltd (commerical arm of ISRO) which likely communicated with the consulting company; it didn't have the need to do so. In-fact that particular launch PSLV-C40 included defence payload (Carbonite-2) from RAF as well, so unless the international space laws dictate specific terms to launching agencies like United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) for our oceans; these are bound to happen.
- LyalinDotCom 9y ago"What are you in here for?" I launched some illegal satellites
- Para2016 9y agoPhase 1: Move operations to China Phase 2: let world use network and China can monitor traffic. Phase 3: profit
- neotek 9y agoWhat a time to be alive, seriously.
- tempestn 9y agoEveryone's talking about the FCC and whether the launch should have been allowed; what I'm curious about is how the Swarm people thought they could get away with this. They obviously know that the satellites will be tracked; did they really think the FCC would just say, "Oh, well, since you already did it, I guess it's ok..." It doesn't make any sense.
- yohui 9y agoYeah, that's the real question. Especially since, according to the article, Swarm was already planning to make their future satellites larger after the smaller design was rejected. Why jeopardize that by launching the previously rejected units?
- olympus 9y agoIt's possible that they have nobody on their team with any government experience nor space experience. This is a fairly common way that startups fail, they think they have a great idea but are unfamiliar with the regulatory environment they must operate in (banking and medical startups are particularly vulnerable). Consider that a cubesat launch costs about $40k, add in $10k for the satellite cost, you're looking at just $200k to launch these satellites. Add in a spare system or three, multiply by a generous margin of error, and you're still under half a million bucks. That's basically the same as hiring a couple employees. To further realize that they could be doing this on the cheap, these are apparently 0.25U sized cubesats, which are even cheaper to launch than the "standard" 1U size: http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/spacebee.htm http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/spacebee.htm They don't necessarily need to be a huge team with a bunch of experienced industry insiders to pull this off. They could just as easily be a couple of recent grads with some of Grandma's inheritance from selling her house in Palo Alto.
- tempestn 9y agoBut it sounds like the co-founders both do have significant space industry experience. Maybe not directly with the regulatory aspects, but a little bit of common sense...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- fapjacks 9y agoThe FCC is renowned for going balls to the wall with enforcement. This is going to be really interesting to watch unfold! I am guessing that the FCC will use whatever means at its disposal to get what it wants here.
- billfruit 9y agoDoes this imply that ISRO launched satellites which is debris risk without due diligence. I always had a feeling that their launches with huge number of small satellites were largely a publicity gimmick, sort of cover for their troubles with developing realiable heavy lift vehicles.
- username223 9y agoSpace is not really a great place to "be naughty." High-velocity trash can ruin a lot of expensive equipment, and the US has been able to nuke space for 50 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime Please, folks, just follow the rules.
- NotSammyHagar 9y agoHow much does it cost to launch 4 of these 1/4 u satellites? Wikipedia says $100k per cubesat, other sources say a little less. Just think, that's within the reach of thousands of us software engineers - at least a few launches. It's like one year's mortgage payment in the bay area (I kid a little). But regardless, that's incredible! it could be your retirement hobby - you pay someone for a 'standard' cubestate, you program it, you put some cameras and other sensors on it, you will pass over anything in the world, your own photos of area 51 or whatever. Actually, would it be legal to take your own photos from space? Maybe to work around this issue you'd have to set up an llc in mexico or the bahamas. Still, I have to keep reminding myself, someone who was a young teenage when cosmos came out, I am living in the world of tomorrow!
- dannyw 9y agoI can't wait for CubeSat-as-a-Service startups.
- stickdogg 9y agoWow. That's craziness.
- shraken 9y agoI'm kind of curious how the KickSat project achieved regulatory approval back in (2014?) for their Sprites. IIRC there were 100 sprite PCB's released from a Cubesat with a UHF radio and chip solar panels on each sprite. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/zacinaction/kicksat-your-personal-spacecraft-in-space/updates https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/zacinaction/kicksat-you...
- ggm 9y agoIf they emit RF can't they be tracked by RDF?