5 ms·

Seems like a total dick move to launch anyway and hope that approval is obtained later. What was the plan if approval was not obtained after launch - did they h

Seems like a total dick move to launch anyway and hope that approval is obtained later. What was the plan if approval was not obtained after launch - did they have the facilities to bring down the satellites? This story reads like Silicon Valley hubris - break rules anyway because we know better. Why even have the FCC when random startups can create their own rules?

Majestic121 8y ago
According to the article/CEO, it happened before that other companies got the approval after launch. There's not much more details than that though, and no confirmation from FCC
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  She received an outright rejection before launch though, and she did it anyway. I think the "other companies got the approval after launch" story is either bullshit or at the very least a gross misrepresentation of how it applied in her case.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    Well, it was also only 4 satellites. The FCC is also probably just happy that they are being consulted at all. If this was done by a fully foreign company (or perhaps sold to a foreign shell company), then there would be nothing that the FCC could do about it.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > If this was done by a fully foreign company (or perhaps sold to a foreign shell company), then there would be nothing that the FCC could do about it If this were done by a fully-foreign company, the American taxpayer wouldn't be liable for its damages. If an American satellite crashes into a French satellite and the American can't pay, ITU rules make the U.S. government liable.
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        Knowing this, I've never been more supportive of the US military taking necessary measures to prevent unauthorized commercial launches from reaching orbit.
        JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > unauthorized commercial launches I've never heard of this happening. Source? If you're building a rocket, you're going to land a 3-letter agency inspection long before launch because of your procurement activities. (I've seen this happen twice, once in college and once at a rocket company.) That said, if someone were literally launching a rogue missile, yes, that would light up NORAD and trigger air defense systems.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        DanBC 8y ago
        > I've never heard of this happening. Source? The article that we're responding to is about an unauthorised commercial launch.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > The article that we're responding to is about an unauthorised commercial launch The payload was unauthorized, but the launch was properly sanctioned by the Indian government. I read "unauthorized commercial launch" to mean "guy pops up a rocket without telling anyone and the military shoots it down," for which I was curious if there is precedent.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        Has "the American taxpayer" paid out a great deal for this in the past? What percentage of the annual budget? Satellites generally stay in their orbits, don't they? That's my understanding of the term "orbit". How would we determine that one satellite is guilty and the other isn't? Would it be whichever fired a rocket most recently?
    - unit91 8y ago
      From the article: > Through Swarm, Spangelo [CEO] sought to develop and launch a constellation of at least 100 small satellites.
- alphakappa 8y ago
  Others getting away with skirting the rules has never been a good moral reason to do it yourself. If launching and getting post-approval was truly the norm, it would make a mockery of getting FCC approval in the first place. It's not like a website that you can take down when necessary. Not to mention that if these devices turn into a community problem if they become LEO hazards. Making society pay for your 'move fast and break things' ethos doesn't sound right.
  - mirashii 8y ago
    > If launching and getting post-approval was truly the norm, it would make a mockery of getting FCC approval in the first place. I wouldn't quite call it the norm, but it is certainly not unheard of in the smallsat industry. Fortunately this story is still an outlier in that they received a rejection first, but it wouldn't be bad to have a discussion on why companies are launching while still awaiting approval and see what, if anything, can change. Anecdotally, what makes this particularly difficult for the companies involved is that they are generally secondary payloads without any say into when a launch goes, with requirements on delivery sometimes months in advance of a launch, and with launch dates that regularly slip months to years. For many companies, this gives them a highly uncertain date by which they actually need the approval, and the process isn't known as a reliably paced one. Sometimes your approval might be sitting in a queue and get bumped by SpaceX applying for licenses for their constellation, for instance.
stale2002 8y ago
It is a bit more complicated than that. The launch was done outside the US, by a foreign launch company. It is a bit weird to me that the US would have jurisdiction over what a foreign rocket company outside the US, launches into space
- madengr 8y ago
  If they are using frequencies over the US, the FCC probably has jurisdiction.
  - ska 8y ago
    That doesn't seem to make sense, think about how many satellites would fall under many jurisdictions. Seems unworkable in practice. The company, though, is US and therefore falls under lots of US regulation potentially.
  - mirashii 8y ago
    Just to not spread additional false information: No, the FCC does not have jurisdiction over foreign-launched satellites transmitting over the US. The FCC does have jurisdiction over groundstations physically in the US and the frequencies and power ranges they operate at.
- alphakappa 8y ago
  The US has jurisdiction over the satellite company which is American. The company doing the actual launch is irrelevant. Even otherwise, just because you can find a loophole in the system doesn't make it right - these approvals exist for a good purpose - there's real danger from orbital debris, so it would make sense to be a good earth citizen and ensure that everything is kosher before you launch.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    It's only a loophole if you believe that the United States should have full legal jurisdiction over space. The real solution that they should have done in this scenario would have been for swarm to simply sell their technology to an entirely foreign conpany that the US has no legal recourse against. (Just like how I am sure that lots of foreign companies buy both parts and technology from US companies. Perhaps even entire satellites).
stcredzero 8y ago
Seems like a total dick move to launch anyway and hope that approval is obtained later...This story reads like Silicon Valley hubris - break rules anyway because we know better. "Do it and ask for forgiveness later," has a threshold of acceptability, as a function of consequences. Generally speaking, loss of life is clearly beyond that threshold, obviously. Significant impacts on people's lives are also beyond that threshold, I would say. More specific to the topic: when your product involves the capability to implement an ICBM, you are probably dealing with energies that place the potential consequences of your product well beyond that threshold.
- siruncledrew 8y ago
  That's true. It's a good way of personally justifying something morally/ethically dubious because the person doing it has a biased opinion it's a good thing. But what 1 person thinks is good isn't necessarily true for the larger body of society. Of course this is not 100% the case all the time, but that's why we have things like checks and balances and governing bodies to hopefully look out for these instances.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Majestic121 8y ago

According to the article/CEO, it happened before that other companies got the approval after launch. There's not much more details than that though, and no confirmation from FCC

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
She received an outright rejection before launch though, and she did it anyway. I think the "other companies got the approval after launch" story is either bullshit or at the very least a gross misrepresentation of how it applied in her case.
- stale2002 8y ago
  Well, it was also only 4 satellites. The FCC is also probably just happy that they are being consulted at all. If this was done by a fully foreign company (or perhaps sold to a foreign shell company), then there would be nothing that the FCC could do about it.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > If this was done by a fully foreign company (or perhaps sold to a foreign shell company), then there would be nothing that the FCC could do about it If this were done by a fully-foreign company, the American taxpayer wouldn't be liable for its damages. If an American satellite crashes into a French satellite and the American can't pay, ITU rules make the U.S. government liable.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      Knowing this, I've never been more supportive of the US military taking necessary measures to prevent unauthorized commercial launches from reaching orbit.
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > unauthorized commercial launches I've never heard of this happening. Source? If you're building a rocket, you're going to land a 3-letter agency inspection long before launch because of your procurement activities. (I've seen this happen twice, once in college and once at a rocket company.) That said, if someone were literally launching a rogue missile, yes, that would light up NORAD and trigger air defense systems.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        DanBC 8y ago
        > I've never heard of this happening. Source? The article that we're responding to is about an unauthorised commercial launch.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > The article that we're responding to is about an unauthorised commercial launch The payload was unauthorized, but the launch was properly sanctioned by the Indian government. I read "unauthorized commercial launch" to mean "guy pops up a rocket without telling anyone and the military shoots it down," for which I was curious if there is precedent.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      Has "the American taxpayer" paid out a great deal for this in the past? What percentage of the annual budget? Satellites generally stay in their orbits, don't they? That's my understanding of the term "orbit". How would we determine that one satellite is guilty and the other isn't? Would it be whichever fired a rocket most recently?
  - unit91 8y ago
    From the article: > Through Swarm, Spangelo [CEO] sought to develop and launch a constellation of at least 100 small satellites.
alphakappa 8y ago
Others getting away with skirting the rules has never been a good moral reason to do it yourself. If launching and getting post-approval was truly the norm, it would make a mockery of getting FCC approval in the first place. It's not like a website that you can take down when necessary. Not to mention that if these devices turn into a community problem if they become LEO hazards. Making society pay for your 'move fast and break things' ethos doesn't sound right.
- mirashii 8y ago
  > If launching and getting post-approval was truly the norm, it would make a mockery of getting FCC approval in the first place. I wouldn't quite call it the norm, but it is certainly not unheard of in the smallsat industry. Fortunately this story is still an outlier in that they received a rejection first, but it wouldn't be bad to have a discussion on why companies are launching while still awaiting approval and see what, if anything, can change. Anecdotally, what makes this particularly difficult for the companies involved is that they are generally secondary payloads without any say into when a launch goes, with requirements on delivery sometimes months in advance of a launch, and with launch dates that regularly slip months to years. For many companies, this gives them a highly uncertain date by which they actually need the approval, and the process isn't known as a reliably paced one. Sometimes your approval might be sitting in a queue and get bumped by SpaceX applying for licenses for their constellation, for instance.

stale2002 8y ago

It is a bit more complicated than that. The launch was done outside the US, by a foreign launch company. It is a bit weird to me that the US would have jurisdiction over what a foreign rocket company outside the US, launches into space

madengr 8y ago
If they are using frequencies over the US, the FCC probably has jurisdiction.
- ska 8y ago
  That doesn't seem to make sense, think about how many satellites would fall under many jurisdictions. Seems unworkable in practice. The company, though, is US and therefore falls under lots of US regulation potentially.
- mirashii 8y ago
  Just to not spread additional false information: No, the FCC does not have jurisdiction over foreign-launched satellites transmitting over the US. The FCC does have jurisdiction over groundstations physically in the US and the frequencies and power ranges they operate at.
alphakappa 8y ago
The US has jurisdiction over the satellite company which is American. The company doing the actual launch is irrelevant. Even otherwise, just because you can find a loophole in the system doesn't make it right - these approvals exist for a good purpose - there's real danger from orbital debris, so it would make sense to be a good earth citizen and ensure that everything is kosher before you launch.
- stale2002 8y ago
  It's only a loophole if you believe that the United States should have full legal jurisdiction over space. The real solution that they should have done in this scenario would have been for swarm to simply sell their technology to an entirely foreign conpany that the US has no legal recourse against. (Just like how I am sure that lots of foreign companies buy both parts and technology from US companies. Perhaps even entire satellites).

stcredzero 8y ago

Seems like a total dick move to launch anyway and hope that approval is obtained later...This story reads like Silicon Valley hubris - break rules anyway because we know better. "Do it and ask for forgiveness later," has a threshold of acceptability, as a function of consequences. Generally speaking, loss of life is clearly beyond that threshold, obviously. Significant impacts on people's lives are also beyond that threshold, I would say. More specific to the topic: when your product involves the capability to implement an ICBM, you are probably dealing with energies that place the potential consequences of your product well beyond that threshold.

siruncledrew 8y ago
That's true. It's a good way of personally justifying something morally/ethically dubious because the person doing it has a biased opinion it's a good thing. But what 1 person thinks is good isn't necessarily true for the larger body of society. Of course this is not 100% the case all the time, but that's why we have things like checks and balances and governing bodies to hopefully look out for these instances.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]