9 ms·

>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, b

>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.
  - kop316 9y ago
    In reading through the document linked, NOAA is not going off on their own in order to demand this license. US congress made public laws relating to what commercial industry can and cannot do for space sensing. NOAA is the organization in charge of ensuring that the law is actually followed. They do not (and should not) have the ability to decide which companies/people can and cannot follow the law. From the text: "The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issues regulations revising the agency’s requirements for the licensing, monitoring and compliance of operators of private Earth remote sensing space systems under Title II of the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (the Act). These regulations implement the provisions of the Act, as amended by the 1998 Commercial Space Act, and the 2003 U.S. Commercial Remote Sensing Policy."
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      Yes, but for the past three decades this wasn't a problem during space launches and now that SpaceX comes along on their 50th+ launch it suddenly is a problem. To me that looks like a trumped up reason, if there was any real concern then it would have been noted at launch #1.

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.
- kop316 9y ago
  In reading through the document linked, NOAA is not going off on their own in order to demand this license. US congress made public laws relating to what commercial industry can and cannot do for space sensing. NOAA is the organization in charge of ensuring that the law is actually followed. They do not (and should not) have the ability to decide which companies/people can and cannot follow the law. From the text: "The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issues regulations revising the agency’s requirements for the licensing, monitoring and compliance of operators of private Earth remote sensing space systems under Title II of the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (the Act). These regulations implement the provisions of the Act, as amended by the 1998 Commercial Space Act, and the 2003 U.S. Commercial Remote Sensing Policy."
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Yes, but for the past three decades this wasn't a problem during space launches and now that SpaceX comes along on their 50th+ launch it suddenly is a problem. To me that looks like a trumped up reason, if there was any real concern then it would have been noted at launch #1.