6 ms·
While everyone jumped in to condemn irresponsible actions, it's quite unclear why everyone assumes fed's authority over foreign satellite launches. It definitel
by vl 8y ago
While everyone jumped in to condemn irresponsible actions, it's quite unclear why everyone assumes fed's authority over foreign satellite launches. It definitely seems like case of overreaching: it was India's business to approve or deny the launch in this case.
Swarm can easily re-incorporate in the less regulated country, re-open developer office in the California, and launch all they like without fed's oversight.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> it's quite unclear why everyone assumes fed's authority over foreign satellite launches If Swarm's satellite smashed into a French satellite and Swarm was unable to pay, the American government would have been liable (together with the Indian government) for the damages. This is how ITU rules work. Same for radio interference. > Swarm can easily re-incorporate in the less regulated country Most countries are ITU members. Certainly every one with spacefaring capabilities. Furthermore, the CEO may have trouble doing her work in another country under American anti-arms trafficking rules (e.g. ITAR and EAR). I've done a good amount of work in the small and micro-satellite spaces. Regulatory overreach is a problem, and the ITU is more bureaucratic than it needs to be. But the paperwork piles up with the FAA and Air Force (and is invoiced in the form of launch fees), not the FCC. Had the CEO consulted with a lawyer and radio engineer, she would have had no problems. Instead she took a shortcut.
- vl 8y agoNotice that I'm not saying that there should be no approval for launches, I'm saying that launcher should bear this responsibility (and follow ITU rules). Otherwise it creates strange situation: feds can't prohibit real Indian, Chinese or Russian satellites, but still can meddle with some of the payload only because it was created by an American company. If this will continue, then this technology will be developed by non-American company and sold back to US.
- wang_li 8y agoI guess whether people agree with you will largely be based on whether US regulations apply to US companies/persons or just US controlled jurisdictions. I'm of the opinion that people shouldn't be able to get around US laws while retaining access to the market, to financial services, to infrastructure and so on. There is precedent for this sort of thing, for example it's illegal for Americans to go overseas for the purpose of having sex with minors.[0] 0 - https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/extraterritorial-sexual-exploitation-children https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/extraterritorial-sexua...
- fipple 8y agoAnd the satellite laws are based on a stronger government interest than those sex laws. The sex laws are solely for the interest of the foreign victims whereas the satellite laws are protecting domestic participants.
- late2part 8y agoMy understanding is that ITU participation does not confer liability: "...there is no liability clause in ITU regulations..." Space Safety is No Accident: The 7th IAASS Conference edited by Tommaso Sgobba, Isabelle Rongier; page 97 https://books.google.com/books?id=YVLMCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=liability+ITU&source=bl&ots=Q9yrCdw7ZQ&sig=gktwhGTJVS6o2vtrvIhILHZBR_0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjm06b2p7HdAhVD1qwKHU-xBlwQ6AEwA3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=liability%20ITUliability&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=YVLMCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA97&lpg=P...
- jMyles 8y ago> it's quite unclear why everyone assumes fed's authority over foreign satellite launches Unless I'm misreading something, I don't think anyone is assuming that (or are you making a deeper point about the dollar as a world reserve currency or something?). For my part, I also don't understand why the FCC has de facto authority for launches (as contrasted to the de jure authority for transmission).
- Sangermaine 8y agoThey could have, but they didn’t. Ergo, the FTC has jurisdiction here.