4 ms·

Regulating launches is a losing battle. If someone wants to put something into space, they'll just go to a country without regulations. And for cases like this

Regulating launches is a losing battle. If someone wants to put something into space, they'll just go to a country without regulations. And for cases like this where a US company does it, the company will just move elsewhere, or have a subsidiary or contractor "own" the satellite. I don't see how the FCC even has jurisdiction over this. I guess they have jurisdiction over communications with satellites within the US, but not over the satellites themselves. And practically speaking, they have no enforcement capabilities in this realm.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> Regulating launches is a losing battle. If someone wants to put something into space, they'll just go to a country without regulations. There aren't that many countries launching commercial payloads, none who will do so in violation of ITU rules. > they have no enforcement capabilities in this realm The ITU has enforcement mechanisms. Rogue satellites are a threat to astronauts, every country's space infrastructure and future launches. Furthermore, Swarm is an American company breaking American law. Normal law enforcement vectors are available.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  > none who will do so in violation of ITU rules. I bet North Korea doesn't give a shit about the ITU rules.
  - djrogers 9y ago
    Setting aside the dubious wisdom of entrusting your launch payload to North Korea, it would be against several laws for a US company to do that - even through proxies and subsidiaries.
  - username223 9y ago
    Or human rights, or nuclear non-proliferation, or treaties against using chemical weapons, or... I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Amoral autocrats ruling medieval slave states will keep doing what they do. Should Swarm relocate from SV to NK?
    - craftyguy 9y ago
      My point is that GP claimed no country would violate international law, when quite frankly that's not true. Hell, even India may have by launching Swarm's satellites without approval from Swarm's host country.
      - username223 9y ago
        I don't think India really knew what it was doing: http://spacenews.com/industry-worried-about-regulatory-backlash-after-unauthorized-cubesat-launch/ http://spacenews.com/industry-worried-about-regulatory-backl... They apparently took a bundle of stuff from Spaceflight Industries, including the space junk from Swarm, and launched it without paying much attention to what it actually was. That seems to be no worse than inattention and maybe a bit of incompetence.
throwawayjava 9y ago
> Regulating launches is a losing battle 1. Why? 2. What's a better alternative? Shooting stuff out of LEO with lasers...? > the company will just move elsewhere, or have a subsidiary or contractor "own" the satellite. So what? Those things are only magic check-mate cards if the government lets them be. And... why the hell should any government let them be? > And practically speaking, they have no enforcement capabilities in this realm. We can't bring people back to life, but that doesn't mean that a country can't punish people for murder the moment they step foot inside that country's borders.
greglindahl 9y ago
What country has launchers and a disdain for space debris regulations? I don't think there are any.
IAmEveryone 9y ago
The Outer Space Treaty sets the rules for (this) space. All countries with launch capabilities (and many others) are signatories. Each country administers the rules by delegating to some agency. This happens to be the FCC in the case of the US.
gnode 9y ago
> they'll just go to a country without regulations There may be some amount of regulatory tourism, but I don't think any countries for some time will be havens. All the countries with a commercial spaceflight industry have a vested interest in not creating a debris cascade.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
bsder 9y ago
> I don't see how the FCC even has jurisdiction over this. I guess they have jurisdiction over communications with satellites within the US, but not over the satellites themselves. And practically speaking, they have no enforcement capabilities in this realm. They have jurisdiction because they have historically had jurisdiction. If not the FCC, then some other agency would do it. And methinks you underestimate the enforcement capability of any US government agency. They can simply ban people, companies or countries from doing business with the US government. For something like an aerospace business, no US government business means bankruptcy. And that's just to start. This can escalate into things like export restrictions, restricted countries, or munitions export controls. And once it's in the realm of munitions, the guys with guns can show up.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> Regulating launches is a losing battle. If someone wants to put something into space, they'll just go to a country without regulations. There aren't that many countries launching commercial payloads, none who will do so in violation of ITU rules. > they have no enforcement capabilities in this realm The ITU has enforcement mechanisms. Rogue satellites are a threat to astronauts, every country's space infrastructure and future launches. Furthermore, Swarm is an American company breaking American law. Normal law enforcement vectors are available.

craftyguy 9y ago
> none who will do so in violation of ITU rules. I bet North Korea doesn't give a shit about the ITU rules.
- djrogers 9y ago
  Setting aside the dubious wisdom of entrusting your launch payload to North Korea, it would be against several laws for a US company to do that - even through proxies and subsidiaries.
- username223 9y ago
  Or human rights, or nuclear non-proliferation, or treaties against using chemical weapons, or... I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Amoral autocrats ruling medieval slave states will keep doing what they do. Should Swarm relocate from SV to NK?
  - craftyguy 9y ago
    My point is that GP claimed no country would violate international law, when quite frankly that's not true. Hell, even India may have by launching Swarm's satellites without approval from Swarm's host country.
    - username223 9y ago
      I don't think India really knew what it was doing: http://spacenews.com/industry-worried-about-regulatory-backlash-after-unauthorized-cubesat-launch/ http://spacenews.com/industry-worried-about-regulatory-backl... They apparently took a bundle of stuff from Spaceflight Industries, including the space junk from Swarm, and launched it without paying much attention to what it actually was. That seems to be no worse than inattention and maybe a bit of incompetence.

throwawayjava 9y ago

> Regulating launches is a losing battle 1. Why? 2. What's a better alternative? Shooting stuff out of LEO with lasers...? > the company will just move elsewhere, or have a subsidiary or contractor "own" the satellite. So what? Those things are only magic check-mate cards if the government lets them be. And... why the hell should any government let them be? > And practically speaking, they have no enforcement capabilities in this realm. We can't bring people back to life, but that doesn't mean that a country can't punish people for murder the moment they step foot inside that country's borders.

greglindahl 9y ago

What country has launchers and a disdain for space debris regulations? I don't think there are any.

IAmEveryone 9y ago

The Outer Space Treaty sets the rules for (this) space. All countries with launch capabilities (and many others) are signatories. Each country administers the rules by delegating to some agency. This happens to be the FCC in the case of the US.

gnode 9y ago

> they'll just go to a country without regulations There may be some amount of regulatory tourism, but I don't think any countries for some time will be havens. All the countries with a commercial spaceflight industry have a vested interest in not creating a debris cascade.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

bsder 9y ago

> I don't see how the FCC even has jurisdiction over this. I guess they have jurisdiction over communications with satellites within the US, but not over the satellites themselves. And practically speaking, they have no enforcement capabilities in this realm. They have jurisdiction because they have historically had jurisdiction. If not the FCC, then some other agency would do it. And methinks you underestimate the enforcement capability of any US government agency. They can simply ban people, companies or countries from doing business with the US government. For something like an aerospace business, no US government business means bankruptcy. And that's just to start. This can escalate into things like export restrictions, restricted countries, or munitions export controls. And once it's in the realm of munitions, the guys with guns can show up.