4 ms·
Some missing context: Only bitcoin eclipses the amount of regulatory uncertainty that surrounds satellites in the US. There are clear international law reasons
by garmaine 8y ago
Some missing context:
Only bitcoin eclipses the amount of regulatory uncertainty that surrounds satellites in the US. There are clear international law reasons that the US government approval is required for launch, but there is absolutely no statute that gives the FCC authority to deny the launch on the grounds that they did -- it's a regulatory power grab on that agency's part, trying to assert regulatory authority they were never granted.
The FCC rejected the launch on the basis of tracking ability, which is something that FCC doesn't do and doesn't have any insight into assessing. If it was spectrum or comms, my assessment would have been different. However right now the satellite regulations are really in flux due to the rise of commercial space and uncertainty about space force reorganizations, etc.
FCC asserting authority over orbital trajectories (vs. say, the FAA or US Space Command who HAVE been the point of contact on those issues for decades of military and NASA space launches) is an inter-agency regulatory power grab. FCC has handled domestic issues regarding geosynchronous satellites, because those are nearly all communications related. Now they're trying to unilaterally extend that to ALL Earth-orbital trajectories.
What do you do when your local Parks & Rec department sends you a letter rejecting your claim of special tax status on your import/export business? That's basically what happened here.
- Rebelgecko 8y agoThe FAA has never cared about what a payload or spacecraft does once it is in orbit. They care about licensing the launches themselves and clearing the airspace, but once your vehicle is in space they don't care what you do with it (they also license reentries, but only for things that aren't meant to burn up in the atmosphere). US STRATCOM does space situational awareness work now (US Space Command was dismantled in 2002 as part of post-9/11 reorganizations, and most of its responsibilities were handed off to STRATCOM). STRATCOM _is_ currently legally mandated to interface and share data with commercial entities for traffic management purposes. However I don't believe they have or ever had any regulatory or licensing powers. STRATCOM also seems eager to pass their situational awareness responsibilities off to either the FAA or DOC. The FCC has been making the argument since the 90s that their charter to regulate in the "public interest" lets them take orbital debris mitigation into account when licensing satellites communications, and it's been codified into their administrative law. If congress or the president considered this a power grab, they've had more than a decade to do something about it. Trump is trying to make the DOC a "one stop shop" for commercial space licensing. However, I believe his executive orders still leave the FAA, FCC, and NOAA's current regulatory roles intact. edit: initially had 2012 instead of 2002 for the year that US Space Command was shut down
- billylindeman 8y agoThanks for this, it did seem odd to me that the FCC would be the governing body for space. They seem to be doing a ton of power grabbing as of late.