6 ms·

> 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

> 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.
    - kop316 9y ago
      > Yes, but for the past three decades this wasn't a problem during space launches More than likely, that's because the commercial companies who needed the license got the license. > now that SpaceX comes along on their 50th+ launch it suddenly is a problem. Probably because the technology on this payload fall under the requirements of the law to need it, and the company who owns the payload didn't get the license. Or, NOAA was unaware of the satellites until now and realize they need to follow up. Since they are a small shop and are not omniscient, that can happen. EDIT: I misread the article, I meant the launches, not the payloads.
      - notahacker 9y ago
        Based on the article text, it looks like it wasn't even NOAA following up so much as SpaceX doing their due diligence at the very last minute and realizing they needed a license too late to get it approved. In which case, it's probably the billion dollar launch vehicle provider whose processes really warrant the most questions and not the three person bureau tasked with navigating license applications through other areas of government. It's amazing how people can get from a description of that sequence of events to tinfoilhattery about bureaucrats "flexing their muscles" with "trumped up reasons". If anything, a logical explanation is probably the opposite: NOAA doesn't have enough control of the remote sensing licensing process to do a flagship government contractor the favour of forcing a license through, and certainly don't have the power to rewrite the law to accord to people's views that SpaceX's videos aren't sufficiently high resolution to matter.
twtw 9y ago
I read most of the relevant sections of the document, and there are good reasons for regulating remote sensing systems. I'm fairly familiar with remote sensing systems (SAR, scatterometry, etc) and I'm most interested in reasons why it makes sense to classify the cameras SpaceX stuck to the side of the rocket as remote sensing systems. While technically accurate according the definition provided in the law, it seems pretty dumb. The law even specifically states that handheld cameras don't count, so the distinction apparently comes down to whether there is a person up there to hold a camera that is easily "hand held" size.
- alistairSH 9y ago
  I noticed the regulation says "remote sensing system" - does that mean SpaceX needs a license to record the video? Broadcasting, at least to me, is not "sensing" - by the time images are broadcast, the "sensing" has already happened (even if by mere microseconds).
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Strictly speaking sensing is the act of making a reading from a sensor, the fact that they transmit the video back to the earth already seems to be in violation (since that could be intercepted and since SpaceX apparently does continue to have access to the feed). So it's nothing to do with recording.
Shivetya 9y ago
well the danger here is that if US regulation becomes to burdensome then some other country will step up and other countries may just flat out ignore it. Which means an exciting and upcoming area of technology may eventually move off shore and hopefully one day off planet. so effort will need to be made by pioneers in this area to shape US policy so it achieves the needed goals without being oppressive enough to shift to other sites
100ideas 9y ago
> (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; #5: The forign policy / state dept / military parts of the US govt want to minimize potential risk of domestic US remote-sensing companies accidentally or deliberatly antagonizing a foreign government... seems prima facie reasonable. To gain leverage during diplomatic negotiations, a foreign power could take the position that one of our "so-called" private civillian satellite companies was actually a front for a state intelligence operation. It would be difficult for state dept to provide evidence to the contrary if they didn't already have contacts with each private space company. Is anyone aware of a diplomatic complaint ever being made along these lines? Maybe in the cablegate archives?

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.
  - kop316 9y ago
    > Yes, but for the past three decades this wasn't a problem during space launches More than likely, that's because the commercial companies who needed the license got the license. > now that SpaceX comes along on their 50th+ launch it suddenly is a problem. Probably because the technology on this payload fall under the requirements of the law to need it, and the company who owns the payload didn't get the license. Or, NOAA was unaware of the satellites until now and realize they need to follow up. Since they are a small shop and are not omniscient, that can happen. EDIT: I misread the article, I meant the launches, not the payloads.
    - notahacker 9y ago
      Based on the article text, it looks like it wasn't even NOAA following up so much as SpaceX doing their due diligence at the very last minute and realizing they needed a license too late to get it approved. In which case, it's probably the billion dollar launch vehicle provider whose processes really warrant the most questions and not the three person bureau tasked with navigating license applications through other areas of government. It's amazing how people can get from a description of that sequence of events to tinfoilhattery about bureaucrats "flexing their muscles" with "trumped up reasons". If anything, a logical explanation is probably the opposite: NOAA doesn't have enough control of the remote sensing licensing process to do a flagship government contractor the favour of forcing a license through, and certainly don't have the power to rewrite the law to accord to people's views that SpaceX's videos aren't sufficiently high resolution to matter.

twtw 9y ago

I read most of the relevant sections of the document, and there are good reasons for regulating remote sensing systems. I'm fairly familiar with remote sensing systems (SAR, scatterometry, etc) and I'm most interested in reasons why it makes sense to classify the cameras SpaceX stuck to the side of the rocket as remote sensing systems. While technically accurate according the definition provided in the law, it seems pretty dumb. The law even specifically states that handheld cameras don't count, so the distinction apparently comes down to whether there is a person up there to hold a camera that is easily "hand held" size.

alistairSH 9y ago
I noticed the regulation says "remote sensing system" - does that mean SpaceX needs a license to record the video? Broadcasting, at least to me, is not "sensing" - by the time images are broadcast, the "sensing" has already happened (even if by mere microseconds).
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Strictly speaking sensing is the act of making a reading from a sensor, the fact that they transmit the video back to the earth already seems to be in violation (since that could be intercepted and since SpaceX apparently does continue to have access to the feed). So it's nothing to do with recording.

Shivetya 9y ago

well the danger here is that if US regulation becomes to burdensome then some other country will step up and other countries may just flat out ignore it. Which means an exciting and upcoming area of technology may eventually move off shore and hopefully one day off planet. so effort will need to be made by pioneers in this area to shape US policy so it achieves the needed goals without being oppressive enough to shift to other sites

100ideas 9y ago

> (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; #5: The forign policy / state dept / military parts of the US govt want to minimize potential risk of domestic US remote-sensing companies accidentally or deliberatly antagonizing a foreign government... seems prima facie reasonable. To gain leverage during diplomatic negotiations, a foreign power could take the position that one of our "so-called" private civillian satellite companies was actually a front for a state intelligence operation. It would be difficult for state dept to provide evidence to the contrary if they didn't already have contacts with each private space company. Is anyone aware of a diplomatic complaint ever being made along these lines? Maybe in the cablegate archives?