6 ms·

This 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

by piker 9y ago

This 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 ago
    Agreed, but one of the Is is not south
- IAmEveryone 9y ago
  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 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...
  - ckocagil 9y ago
    >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 with the resources it needs isn't a "bribe". It seems to me that the best way to solve this problem is to get rid of this useless office. >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... I don't think it's good discussion etiquette to link to an unreadable wall of bureaucratic text and not give any context. I.e. at least state one good reason for this regulation.
    - IAmEveryone 9y ago
      > 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 bureaucratic text and not give any context. I.e. at least state one good reason for this regulation. See: it's this attitude that keeps the level of such discussions at a kindergarten level. The linked document contains text, yes. But it's perfectly readable English. The first paragraph is headlined "SUMMARY" and contains this justification for the regulation and the office implementing it: They are intended to facilitate the development of the U.S. commercial remote sensing industry and promote the collection and widespread availability of Earth remote sensing data, while preserving essential U.S. national security interests, foreign policy and international obligations. You can easily find a later section entitled "Purpose" that expands on it: (1) Preserve the national security of the United States; (2) Observe the foreign policies and international obligations of the United States; (3) Advance and protect U.S. national security and foreign policy interests by maintaining U.S. leadership in remote sensing space activities, and by sustaining and enhancing the U.S. remote sensing industry; (4) Promote the broad use of remote sensing data, their information products and applications; (5) Ensure that unenhanced data collected by licensed private remote sensing space systems concerning the territory of any country are made available to the government of that country upon its request, as soon as such data are available and on reasonable commercial terms and conditions as appropriate; (6) Ensure that remotely sensed data are widely available for civil and scientific research, particularly environmental and global change research; and (7) Maintain a permanent comprehensive U.S. government archive of global land remote sensing data for long-term monitoring and study of the changing global environment. Those seem to be seven good reasons. If you want to argue their merit, you should start with a good-faith effort to understand them.

by piker 9y ago

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 ago
  Agreed, but one of the Is is not south
IAmEveryone 9y ago
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 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...
- ckocagil 9y ago
  >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 with the resources it needs isn't a "bribe". It seems to me that the best way to solve this problem is to get rid of this useless office. >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... I don't think it's good discussion etiquette to link to an unreadable wall of bureaucratic text and not give any context. I.e. at least state one good reason for this regulation.
  - IAmEveryone 9y ago
    > 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 bureaucratic text and not give any context. I.e. at least state one good reason for this regulation. See: it's this attitude that keeps the level of such discussions at a kindergarten level. The linked document contains text, yes. But it's perfectly readable English. The first paragraph is headlined "SUMMARY" and contains this justification for the regulation and the office implementing it: They are intended to facilitate the development of the U.S. commercial remote sensing industry and promote the collection and widespread availability of Earth remote sensing data, while preserving essential U.S. national security interests, foreign policy and international obligations. You can easily find a later section entitled "Purpose" that expands on it: (1) Preserve the national security of the United States; (2) Observe the foreign policies and international obligations of the United States; (3) Advance and protect U.S. national security and foreign policy interests by maintaining U.S. leadership in remote sensing space activities, and by sustaining and enhancing the U.S. remote sensing industry; (4) Promote the broad use of remote sensing data, their information products and applications; (5) Ensure that unenhanced data collected by licensed private remote sensing space systems concerning the territory of any country are made available to the government of that country upon its request, as soon as such data are available and on reasonable commercial terms and conditions as appropriate; (6) Ensure that remotely sensed data are widely available for civil and scientific research, particularly environmental and global change research; and (7) Maintain a permanent comprehensive U.S. government archive of global land remote sensing data for long-term monitoring and study of the changing global environment. Those seem to be seven good reasons. If you want to argue their merit, you should start with a good-faith effort to understand them.