12 ms·
SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license
- msl09 9y agoBut why does the license exist?
- pmorici 9y agoThe NOAA statement on the issue seems to imply that the rule exists because the government wants a measure of control over images of the Earth's surface for "national security" reasons. [0] http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-statement-on-todays-broadcast-of-spacex-iridium-5-launch http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-statement-on-todays-b...
- HenryBemis 9y agoAnd let me guess, they also run this through the respective Russian, Chinese, Japanese, French, Spanish, 'NOAAs' so that nobody spies on anyone's secret areas (51? ;).
- a012 9y agoWhat's the point? Doesn't China, Russia, and EU have a lot of sats and what if they decide to broadcast like SpaceX? US will threaten them?
- oh_sigh 9y agoThe whole point is to prevent giving away information to other countries who don't have it already, not some conspiracy to prevent Americans from seeing the earth. Other countries are free to broadcast their data to the world if they like. The US will probably learn nothing new about the Earth but would learn of at least some chacteristics of other country's satellite tech
- bpicolo 9y ago> prevent giving away information to other countries who don't have it already Pretty easy for a nation-state to launch a surveillance satellite with much better optics, I imagine.
- bitcurious 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_first_orbital_launches_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_first_orbital_laun... This is a list of nations that have managed to put something in orbit. It contains 10 nations, and the ESA. The vast majority of nations do not have the capability.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoThat's a list of nations capable of launching stuff on their own. Compare with this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite#First_satellites_of_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite#First_satellites_of_... Non-space-capable countries do routinely put their payload on the rockets of countries with launch capability (though I guess then it can't be an obvious spy satellite).
- some_random 9y agoI suppose nation-states aren't the only ones who'd like information on US military bases/infrastructure/"nationalsecurityinterests", but I honestly think it's irrelevant. If we were discussing serious imaging systems then sure, but it's pretty clear that a webcam isn't going to give anyone any meaningful information.
- grigjd3 9y agoThe point is that you don't hand out the license trivially. Yes, spacex is just discussing this in the context of a glorified webcam, but webcasts aren't their only business. Such a license needs to consider the whole business. Now the NOAA perhaps should consider a type of limited license, but they can't assume the only imagery technology spacex is interested in is webcams.
- slyall 9y agoReading : https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html I'm guessing: * They don't want the satellite taking and selling photos of secret US government stuff (or Israel or other areas that would cause the US government grief). * They want to make sure the satellite doesn't crash or otherwise cause problems for which the US would be liable.
- notahacker 9y agoThere are privacy implications for air or space based surveillance of the Earth (rather more so for high resolution photography of specific areas of land than video in which the earth is merely a backdrop, but drawing that distinction isn't necessarily trivial). The solution the United States has adopted is to regulate the extent to which commercial entities are entitled to distribute such imagery and video; licensing who is entitled to distribute such images forms part of that regime.
- Dylan16807 9y ago> drawing that distinction isn't necessarily trivial Meters per pixel. If it's >20, just give it blanket permission.
- notahacker 9y agoThat's probably the most practical option, but even that distinction isn't necessarily straightforward in a launch video (and even the sort of 20m multispectral imagery that's freely made available to the entire world by multiple providers including NASA becomes more of a possible privacy/security issue if remote sensing operators were to permanently point their cameras at the same location). The regulation was likely drafted with a view to the future in an era where all satellite based EO had low spatial resolutions and processing techniques were in their infancy anyway.
- Dylan16807 9y ago> even that distinction isn't necessarily straightforward in a launch video From what I understand the trouble point is when they hit orbit, and by then they're plenty far away to meet the cutoff.
- logfromblammo 9y agoBecause 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.
- piker 9y agoThis makes me wince. Is broad interpretation of that rule really the best use of an "extremely small" office that probably has a really good reason for existing otherwise? These sorts of regulatory foot faults have a very real cost to innovation. Think of what these videos have done for public interest in space travel and the imaginations of millions. Unless there's some overwhelming reason for this rule to apply in these circumstances, it's time to rewrite or reinterpret.
- HenryBemis 9y ago"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 solved! All these years of watching Star Trek universe (series & movies) taught me nothing!!!
- Zardoz84 9y ago> "Extremely small office" is a typical public sector reply in the PIIGS in order to get a bribe to 'make things move faster'. I suggest to stop using "PIIGS" as is a pejorative term to refer south European countries.
- raverbashing 9y agoAgreed, but one of the Is is not south
- IAmEveryone 9y agoYour 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 space missions. These are set out in international agreements and enforced by the operator's country of origin. Greenland is a territory of Denmark, and your proposed "pirate launches" would be regulated by the European Space Agency. Problem (really) solved! There's also stuff like the Outer Space Treaty, a valiant (and mostly effective) effort of international cooperation preventing a wasteful and dangerous arms race in space. Yeah, Trump seems to be reneging on that as well, go figure. "Extremely small office" is simply a fact. There are three people working on this subject. Since most people will agree that SpaceX's videos really isn't much of a problem, nobody is actually complaining about past non-enforcement. Therefore, the lack of enforcement really isn't a very strong argument for increased funding, is it? Providing a potentially understaffed office with the resources it needs isn't a "bribe". These people would not personally get any money. They are not asking for money from SpaceX or any other interested party. Regarding this specific licensing requirement, a good read is https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/files/15%20CFR%20Part%20960%20Regs%202006.pdf https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/files/15%20CFR%20Part%2096.... It's the result of a public deliberation and shows the different goals, stakeholders, and experiences underlying the regulation, and how they have to be balanced. > All these years of watching Star Trek universe (series & movies) taught me nothing!!! indeed...
- jnamaya 9y agoThe US owns the earth now? What a croc of shit.
- HenryBemis 9y agoHey, (almost) everyone on Star Trek speaks english, with an American accent (apart this perfect human being called Jean Luc Piccard!!)(or with slight Russian accent). Even the Ferenghi! That should have made it clear for you :)
- ComputerGuru 9y agoThey actually don’t. It’s explained in several TNG episodes as being a facade created by the “universal translator” plot device.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> It’s explained in several TNG episodes And TOS, for that matter.
- jcranmer 9y agoActually, the accent is more Polish than Russian (or so I've heard).
- notahacker 9y agoNo, 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.
- tantalor 9y ago> large scale 1080p wide-angle is not quite large scale in terms of space imagery
- JustSomeNobody 9y ago
- IanWambai 9y agoThis is really, really dumb.
- pi-squared 9y agoSounds like they needed an excuse to cover up something.
- jordz 9y agoNo entity should be able to license or control broadcasting of the Earth. Whoever said it made them wince, I am also in a state of wincing.
- WiseWeasel 9y agoWe should attack the problem from the other direction, and for entities without special exemptions, require proof of consent from any identifiable people and organizations whose activity can be discerned in the recordings they retain or make commercial use of.
- jacquesm 9y agoThe public interest would appear to outweigh the narrow rights of the licensing office here. And it's not as if we don't have hours of footage from those places at the same resolution already so whatever horse they're trying to keep in the barn has already bolted.
- baldfat 9y ago> The public interest would appear to outweigh the narrow rights of the .... If only that was ever used to make regulation. We might have a decent copyright law by now in the US. I still blame Micky Mouse and Disney for all bad copy right law.
- jacquesm 9y agoI think that that is better explained by the power of money in American politics than anything else. On another note, copyright laws in the rest of the world aren't that much better which means that even that is only a partial explanation at best. But I take your point that public interest is rarely the thing foremost on politicians minds when they create their laws.
- bitcurious 9y ago>And it's not as if we don't have hours of footage from those places at the same resolution already so whatever horse they're trying to keep in the barn has already bolted. That would suggest that public interest would not outweigh the rights of the licensing holders.
- jacquesm 9y agoNo, that suggests it doesn't matter at all.
- alexhawdon 9y agoSeems to me the quick solution would be to grant a blanket exemption based on the resolution of surface features.
- threepipeproblm 9y agoSigh, the flatearthers are going to love this one.
- sschueller 9y agoCome on, this is the kind of crap that fuels flat earthers.
- jstanley 9y agoWhich is another way of saying "this is some evidence in favour of the theory that the earth is actually flat and the government is trying to hide it".
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- freehunter 9y agoGin and poor education fuels flat-earthers. Anything can be made into a conspiracy theory with only minimal effort.
- TorKlingberg 9y agoI bet this law exists because the military asked for it. Spy satellites have military importance, so they want control over anything that looks even slightly like a spy satellite.
- some_random 9y agoMaybe, 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.
- grigjd3 9y agoWhatever it "seems" like to you, it is a law passed by congress and signed by the president.
- Meditato 9y agoNo, it's an extremely overreaching interpretation of a treaty and NOAA's legislative charter.
- qsqrRvUF 9y agoThat doesn't necessarily mean the president or anyone in congress actually read it.
- TangoTrotFox 9y agoThe 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? [1] - https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics
- 2g67vupsoknn 9y agoTFW you blew your entire CGI budget on a car commercial
- twtw 9y agoIt'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 every mission. SpaceX cameras providing the video for the webcasts are certainly small and could be "handheld," so it seems to come down to the fact that no human is up there with them. Remote sensing systems are a thing, and there are good reasons to regulate them. Tiny cameras stuck to the side of SpaceX rockets should not be classified as "remote sensing systems." When I think of remote sensing satellites, Landsat series and friends come to mind, not an off the shelf camera stuck on the side of a rocket.
- mkirklions 9y agoWhen you fail at your job, you can always complain about something. These are excuses and attempts to get press. Nothing more.
- twtw 9y agoSorry, could you clarify your comment? Who has failed at their job, and who is making excuses and attempting to get press?
- mkirklions 9y ago>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 on 'using this' for a bad mission. One where they didnt want to show the video, but still get press points. SpaceX has always been a very heavily marketed company. You should be skeptical whenever they get headlines.
- crististm 9y agoThis license is probably in place to cover situations where high resolution cameras in commercial satellites could compete with military surveillance ones.
- jerkstate 9y agoSo 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.
- crististm 9y agoOr it could be that they simply found out and would not like to risk being willfully non-compliant.
- icebraining 9y agoWhat rules are they not following?
- jccooper 9y agoIt's such a nonsense application of the rule that the people doing the regulation didn't even think about it for at least 8 years (https://youtu.be/fshVNOJ-Wtg?t=296 https://youtu.be/fshVNOJ-Wtg?t=296) so it's hard to fault SpaceX. It's also an extremely good bet that NOAA also recently got an application from ULA. (https://youtu.be/FUJ9Dtyiclw?t=213 https://youtu.be/FUJ9Dtyiclw?t=213)
- TallGuyShort 9y agoUnless there's a licensing process that makes the agency money or shows up in the numbers they show their bosses (like in this case), no regulatory agency in my experience is ever willing to clarify if something is legal or not. Their only response is to hire legal advice, and they'll take legal action against you if you're wrong. It's stupid that just knowing if the government will let you do something often requires paying money to a private business licensed by that same government for an educated prediction that you could very well still end up being responsible for if it's wrong.
- qsqrRvUF 9y agoNo no-one should be following ridiculous rules if they can safely ignore them.
- exabrial 9y agoGovernment over-regulation at its finest. I can certainly understand the FCC being involved here to manage bandwidth allocations, but a license to send pictures is ridiculous and is walking into murky water with First Amendment rights.
- UncleEntity 9y agoCouldn't they just get someone in the office with a ham license to become the "broadcaster" and do without all the NOAA license shenanigans?
- a-fried-egg 9y agoIt's because SpaceX is becoming "too successful" at what it does.
- rednerrus 9y agoElon on the final level of Flat Earth Adventures.
- alexandercrohde 9y agoI 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.
- blhack 9y agoGood 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.
- vilhelm_s 9y agoI think the idea is more that the regulation will stop private U.S. companies from acting militarily against other countries. E.g., the U.S. has a treaty with Israel that forbids publishing high-resolution satellite imagery of Israel, and one of the functions of the licensing system is to implement that treaty.
- jakelarkin 9y agolet me guess, ULA filed a complaint?
- jefe_ 9y agoFunctionally, these all seem very similar: SpaceX broadcasting from a camera attached to a Rocket Boeing broadcasting from a camera attached to a Plane Toyota broadcasting from a camera attached to a SUV James Cameron broadcasting from a camera attached to a Submarine
- Rebelgecko 9y agoToyota would have a hard time driving their SUV to Area 51 It would probably not go over well if James Cameron broadcasted from directly under an American aircraft carrier, or next to a nuclear submarine SpaceX put a camera up in orbit against the law. I suspect that NOAA was willing to look the other way when they did something borderline (2nd stage cameras), but now that they've pushed it too far they're not willing to cut them as much slack
- vilhelm_s 9y agoThis kindof puts that law requiring a copyright license for taking photos of the Eiffel tower into perspective. You now need a license for taking photos of... the Earth?
- ChuckMcM 9y agoI 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.