5 ms·

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 wan

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.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    I really don't see any of those reasons as being sufficient to cover SpaceX launch videos other than in the most narrow bureaucratic sense. (1) Is dubious at best in this context, given that they do permit the first couple of 10's of KM up and only after that does this office's authority come into play. By then any imagery at HD video resolution of the United States has zero implication for national security. (2) and (3) are neutrals by my interpretation. And it actually flat out contradicts (4), (5), (6) and (7), since it isn't promoting it but actively tries to reduce it and blocks the public dissemination of the live streams they were already making available. GGGPs arguments made no sense, yours are more verbose and seemingly better founded but they also make no sense. This is just a nice example of a bunch of people with no actual stake in the outcome flexing their bureaucratic muscle, the equivalent of the little people behind government institutions little windows in places of 'public service' whose only role in life seems to be to ruin yours and to send you to another colleague behind another window. > If you want to argue their merit, you should start with a good-faith effort to understand them. That goes for you too, in particular for stuff you quote.
teh_klev 9y ago
> Your narrow-minded anger is ill-informed. Really?
emiliobumachar 9y ago
It seems to me that you're arguing broadly that space regulation, generally speaking, could, in principle, be good. I agree with that. Now, do you have any arguments in favor of the regulatory restrictions on SpaceX lauch videos?
- IAmEveryone 9y ago
  No, not really. SpaceX's usage is obviously far too trivial to trigger any of the concerns motivating the regulation. BUT: Exhaustively specifying all possibilities in law is rather impossible, and any attempt would make legal texts even more verbose. Giving an agency the leeway to waive regulations on a case-by-case basis may however appear (or be) arbitrary. Although I suspect the latter may still happen once the agency has had more than three days to think about it. Otherwise, it may just be preferable for SpaceX to spend a few hours submitting the application. It's really not rocket science.

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.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  I really don't see any of those reasons as being sufficient to cover SpaceX launch videos other than in the most narrow bureaucratic sense. (1) Is dubious at best in this context, given that they do permit the first couple of 10's of KM up and only after that does this office's authority come into play. By then any imagery at HD video resolution of the United States has zero implication for national security. (2) and (3) are neutrals by my interpretation. And it actually flat out contradicts (4), (5), (6) and (7), since it isn't promoting it but actively tries to reduce it and blocks the public dissemination of the live streams they were already making available. GGGPs arguments made no sense, yours are more verbose and seemingly better founded but they also make no sense. This is just a nice example of a bunch of people with no actual stake in the outcome flexing their bureaucratic muscle, the equivalent of the little people behind government institutions little windows in places of 'public service' whose only role in life seems to be to ruin yours and to send you to another colleague behind another window. > If you want to argue their merit, you should start with a good-faith effort to understand them. That goes for you too, in particular for stuff you quote.

teh_klev 9y ago

> Your narrow-minded anger is ill-informed. Really?

emiliobumachar 9y ago

It seems to me that you're arguing broadly that space regulation, generally speaking, could, in principle, be good. I agree with that. Now, do you have any arguments in favor of the regulatory restrictions on SpaceX lauch videos?

IAmEveryone 9y ago
No, not really. SpaceX's usage is obviously far too trivial to trigger any of the concerns motivating the regulation. BUT: Exhaustively specifying all possibilities in law is rather impossible, and any attempt would make legal texts even more verbose. Giving an agency the leeway to waive regulations on a case-by-case basis may however appear (or be) arbitrary. Although I suspect the latter may still happen once the agency has had more than three days to think about it. Otherwise, it may just be preferable for SpaceX to spend a few hours submitting the application. It's really not rocket science.