7 ms·

It'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 t

by twtw 9y ago

It'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 ago
When you fail at your job, you can always complain about something. These are excuses and attempts to get press. Nothing more.
- twtw 9y ago
  Sorry, 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.
    - elsonrodriguez 9y ago
      > SpaceX has always been a very heavily marketed company. You should be skeptical whenever they get headlines. I don't understand how SpaceX deserves any more skepticism than any other company's headlines at this point.
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
> Tiny cameras stuck to the side of SpaceX rockets should not be classified as "remote sensing systems." I would say they should not generally be classified as "remote sensing systems." 'Cause you know someone would push things too far.
- twtw 9y ago
  Sure, I was thinking of this specific case only. If someone starts to use tiny cameras in a way such that they are actually useful for remote sensing, then by all means regulate them.
  - blhack 9y ago
    Why should this be regulated at all?
- balabaster 9y ago
  Can't think of anyone that ever take a situation and abuse it, push it too far, do something it wasn't intended to by its initial design... definitely wouldn't consider anyone such as law enforcement agencies or city, state or federal government doing any such thing... because you know, people are reasonable, right? </sardonic sarcasm tag> I guess abusing loopholes is the monopoly of authority.
bufferoverflow 9y ago
It's a farce that you need a license to take pictures at all. I'm sure Russian and Chinese satellites already take photos of the US military bases regularly.
- kirillseva 9y ago
  Just as US military satellites take pictures of Russian and Chinese facilities as well. Both can play this game
  - Mononokay 9y ago
    I don't think anyone contested that...?
  - TallGuyShort 9y ago
    So it would be pretty silly for Russia to ban similar cameras for fear of state secrets being uncovered, right?
    - kirillseva 9y ago
      Oh no, don't get me wrong, I think the regulation is totally stupid. Why bother regulating something over which you have no control of? It is just putting unnecessary barriers for domestic innovators while your real competition is not wasting precious cycles.
- MBCook 9y ago
  They’re not under the jurisdiction of a US agency.
  - jonknee 9y ago
    Which makes it even more dumb, the people we don't want taking pictures do so at will while the people we don't mind taking pictures are banned.
    - 9y ago
cwkoss 9y ago
SpaceX just needs to make some silicone hands that hold the cameras and they'll be set.
akira2501 9y ago
> Remote sensing systems are a thing, and there are good reasons to regulate them. I'm curious. What do you consider those to be? More importantly, do you consider the First Amendment to supersede these laws?

by twtw 9y ago

mkirklions 9y ago

When you fail at your job, you can always complain about something. These are excuses and attempts to get press. Nothing more.

twtw 9y ago
Sorry, 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.
  - elsonrodriguez 9y ago
    > SpaceX has always been a very heavily marketed company. You should be skeptical whenever they get headlines. I don't understand how SpaceX deserves any more skepticism than any other company's headlines at this point.

JustSomeNobody 9y ago

> Tiny cameras stuck to the side of SpaceX rockets should not be classified as "remote sensing systems." I would say they should not generally be classified as "remote sensing systems." 'Cause you know someone would push things too far.

twtw 9y ago
Sure, I was thinking of this specific case only. If someone starts to use tiny cameras in a way such that they are actually useful for remote sensing, then by all means regulate them.
- blhack 9y ago
  Why should this be regulated at all?
balabaster 9y ago
Can't think of anyone that ever take a situation and abuse it, push it too far, do something it wasn't intended to by its initial design... definitely wouldn't consider anyone such as law enforcement agencies or city, state or federal government doing any such thing... because you know, people are reasonable, right? </sardonic sarcasm tag> I guess abusing loopholes is the monopoly of authority.

bufferoverflow 9y ago

It's a farce that you need a license to take pictures at all. I'm sure Russian and Chinese satellites already take photos of the US military bases regularly.

kirillseva 9y ago
Just as US military satellites take pictures of Russian and Chinese facilities as well. Both can play this game
- Mononokay 9y ago
  I don't think anyone contested that...?
- TallGuyShort 9y ago
  So it would be pretty silly for Russia to ban similar cameras for fear of state secrets being uncovered, right?
  - kirillseva 9y ago
    Oh no, don't get me wrong, I think the regulation is totally stupid. Why bother regulating something over which you have no control of? It is just putting unnecessary barriers for domestic innovators while your real competition is not wasting precious cycles.
MBCook 9y ago
They’re not under the jurisdiction of a US agency.
- jonknee 9y ago
  Which makes it even more dumb, the people we don't want taking pictures do so at will while the people we don't mind taking pictures are banned.
  - 9y ago

cwkoss 9y ago

SpaceX just needs to make some silicone hands that hold the cameras and they'll be set.

akira2501 9y ago

> Remote sensing systems are a thing, and there are good reasons to regulate them. I'm curious. What do you consider those to be? More importantly, do you consider the First Amendment to supersede these laws?