
SpaceX can't broadcast Earth images because of a murky license - vezycash
https://www.cnet.com/news/spacex-cant-broadcast-earth-images-because-of-a-murky-license/
======
twtw
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.

~~~
bufferoverflow
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.

~~~
MBCook
They’re not under the jurisdiction of a US agency.

~~~
jonknee
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.

~~~
drharby
Speak for yourself - i dont want companies taking pictures.

~~~
jonknee
But they do, commercial satellite imagery is a big business (anyone who has
used Google Earth knows this). It's just not the business SpaceX is in so it's
not worth going through the hassle.

~~~
drharby
That wasnt the main idea of my statement.

I contend that my desire differs from parent comments claim

------
piker
This makes me wince. Is broad interpretation of that rule really the best use
of an "extremely small" office that probably has a really good reason for
existing otherwise? These sorts of regulatory foot faults have a very real
cost to innovation. Think of what these videos have done for public interest
in space travel and the imaginations of millions. Unless there's some
overwhelming reason for this rule to apply in these circumstances, it's time
to rewrite or reinterpret.

~~~
HenryBemis
"Extremely small office" is a typical public sector reply in the PIIGS in
order to get a bribe to 'make things move faster'.

Or a piece of bureacracy in order to harass anyone we want, anytime we want.

Also.. an "Act" on what to do in Space? Seriously? So when that thing flies
over (e.g.) Japan should it follow Japan's laws? Or we only count the base
location? In which case movie it to (e.g.) Greenland and problem solved!

All these years of watching Star Trek universe (series & movies) taught me
nothing!!!

~~~
IAmEveryone
Your narrow-minded anger is ill-informed.

First, there are quite a few very obvious reasons why it's in humanity's
interest to regulate space missions. You want to minimise space debris, for
example, because it could result in a series of collisions making near-earth
orbits a wasteland you can't cross.

That's why there are rules on the size, structure, orbits, data sharing,
disposal mechanisms and other features of space missions. These are set out in
international agreements and enforced by the operator's country of origin.
Greenland is a territory of Denmark, and your proposed "pirate launches" would
be regulated by the European Space Agency. Problem (really) solved!

There's also stuff like the Outer Space Treaty, a valiant (and mostly
effective) effort of international cooperation preventing a wasteful and
dangerous arms race in space. Yeah, Trump seems to be reneging on that as
well, go figure.

"Extremely small office" is simply a fact. There are three people working on
this subject. Since most people will agree that SpaceX's videos really isn't
much of a problem, nobody is actually complaining about past non-enforcement.
Therefore, the lack of enforcement really isn't a very strong argument for
increased funding, is it?

Providing a potentially understaffed office with the resources it needs isn't
a "bribe". These people would not personally get any money. They are not
asking for money from SpaceX or any other interested party.

Regarding this specific licensing requirement, a good read is
[https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/files/15%20CFR%20Part%2096...](https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/files/15%20CFR%20Part%20960%20Regs%202006.pdf).
It's the result of a public deliberation and shows the different goals,
stakeholders, and experiences underlying the regulation, and how they have to
be balanced.

> All these years of watching Star Trek universe (series & movies) taught me
> nothing!!!

indeed...

~~~
ckocagil
>First, there are quite a few very obvious reasons why it's in humanity's
interest to regulate space missions. You want to minimise space debris, for
example, because it could result in a series of collisions making near-earth
orbits a wasteland you can't cross.

Preventing space debris is not related to this topic in the least. Neither is
preventing a "space arms race".

>Providing a potentially understaffed office with the resources it needs isn't
a "bribe".

It seems to me that the best way to solve this problem is to get rid of this
useless office.

>Regarding this specific licensing requirement, a good read is
[https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/files/15%20CFR%20Part%2096...](https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/files/15%20CFR%20Part%20960%20Regs%202006.pdf)

I don't think it's good discussion etiquette to link to an unreadable wall of
bureaucratic text and not give any context. I.e. at least state one good
reason for this regulation.

~~~
IAmEveryone
> Preventing space debris is not related to this topic in the least. Neither
> is preventing a "space arms race".

The relation is OP's complete and naive refusal to entertain the possibility
and usefulness of regulating private activity in space.

> It seems to me that the best way to solve this problem is to get rid of this
> useless office. > I don't think it's good discussion etiquette to link to an
> unreadable wall of bureaucratic text and not give any context. I.e. at least
> state one good reason for this regulation.

See: it's this attitude that keeps the level of such discussions at a
kindergarten level. The linked document contains text, yes. But it's perfectly
readable English. The first paragraph is headlined "SUMMARY" and contains this
justification for the regulation and the office implementing it:

 _They are intended to facilitate the development of the U.S. commercial
remote sensing industry and promote the collection and widespread availability
of Earth remote sensing data, while preserving essential U.S. national
security interests, foreign policy and international obligations._

You can easily find a later section entitled "Purpose" that expands on it:

 _(1) Preserve the national security of the United States;

(2) Observe the foreign policies and international obligations of the United
States;

(3) Advance and protect U.S. national security and foreign policy interests by
maintaining U.S. leadership in remote sensing space activities, and by
sustaining and enhancing the U.S. remote sensing industry;

(4) Promote the broad use of remote sensing data, their information products
and applications;

(5) Ensure that unenhanced data collected by licensed private remote sensing
space systems concerning the territory of any country are made available to
the government of that country upon its request, as soon as such data are
available and on reasonable commercial terms and conditions as appropriate;

(6) Ensure that remotely sensed data are widely available for civil and
scientific research, particularly environmental and global change research;
and

(7) Maintain a permanent comprehensive U.S. government archive of global land
remote sensing data for long-term monitoring and study of the changing global
environment._

Those seem to be seven good reasons. If you want to argue their merit, you
should start with a good-faith effort to understand them.

~~~
jacquesm
I really don't see any of those reasons as being sufficient to cover SpaceX
launch videos other than in the most narrow bureaucratic sense.

(1) Is dubious at best in this context, given that they _do_ permit the first
couple of 10's of KM up and only _after that_ does this office's authority
come into play. By then any imagery at HD video resolution of the United
States has zero implication for national security. (2) and (3) are neutrals by
my interpretation. And it actually flat out contradicts (4), (5), (6) and (7),
since it isn't promoting it but actively tries to reduce it and blocks the
public dissemination of the live streams they were already making available.

GGGPs arguments made no sense, yours are more verbose and seemingly better
founded but they _also_ make no sense.

This is just a nice example of a bunch of people with no actual stake in the
outcome flexing their bureaucratic muscle, the equivalent of the little people
behind government institutions little windows in places of 'public service'
whose only role in life seems to be to ruin yours and to send you to another
colleague behind another window.

> If you want to argue their merit, you should start with a good-faith effort
> to understand them.

That goes for you too, in particular for stuff you quote.

~~~
kop316
In reading through the document linked, NOAA is not going off on their own in
order to demand this license. US congress made public laws relating to what
commercial industry can and cannot do for space sensing. NOAA is the
organization in charge of ensuring that the law is actually followed. They do
not (and should not) have the ability to decide which companies/people can and
cannot follow the law. From the text:

"The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issues regulations
revising the agency’s requirements for the licensing, monitoring and
compliance of operators of private Earth remote sensing space systems under
Title II of the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (the Act). These
regulations implement the provisions of the Act, as amended by the 1998
Commercial Space Act, and the 2003 U.S. Commercial Remote Sensing Policy."

~~~
jacquesm
Yes, but for the past three decades this wasn't a problem during space
launches and now that SpaceX comes along on their 50th+ launch it suddenly is
a problem.

To me that looks like a trumped up reason, if there was any real concern then
it would have been noted at launch #1.

~~~
kop316
> Yes, but for the past three decades this wasn't a problem during space
> launches

More than likely, that's because the commercial companies who needed the
license got the license.

> now that SpaceX comes along on their 50th+ launch it suddenly is a problem.

Probably because the technology on this payload fall under the requirements of
the law to need it, and the company who owns the payload didn't get the
license. Or, NOAA was unaware of the satellites until now and realize they
need to follow up. Since they are a small shop and are not omniscient, that
can happen.

EDIT: I misread the article, I meant the launches, not the payloads.

~~~
jacquesm
> More than likely, that's because the commercial companies who needed the
> license got the license.

More likely: they just woke up to the possibility of showing the world they
exist.

> Probably because the technology on this payload fall under the requirements
> of the law to need it, and the company who owns the payload didn't get the
> license.

I don't see what it has to do with payloads.

> Or, NOAA was unaware of the satellites until now and realize they need to
> follow up.

It's not about the satellites, it is about the _launches_ , specifically video
from orbit.

~~~
notahacker
> More likely: they just woke up to the possibility of showing the world they
> exist.

I mean, the only evidence we've got is an article which quite clearly states
that (i) SpaceX were the ones who contacted NOAA (ii) NOAA did not contact
SpaceX regarding other launches, say it was SpaceX's responsibility to contact
them and they don't think they have the resources to go chasing unlicensed
remote sensing companies anyway (iii) Cameras on launches SpaceX carries out
for government don't actually need permits anyway, which probably applies to a
lot of SpaceX launches

So I'm not sure what gives you the confidence to confidently assert that it's
"more likely" the precise opposite happened?

~~~
jacquesm
You are conveniently leaving out the bit from TFA that states that NOAA only
recently started to enforce this particular part of their charter.

That is why SpaceX contacted them. If they had not and they had launched
without obtaining permission and streamed the footage there would have been a
nice 'gotcha' moment and they tried to avoid that.

> Cameras on launches SpaceX carries out for government don't actually need
> permits anyway.

So what's the point on restricting them on other launches? That proves this
whole thing is high grade bullshit.

~~~
notahacker
I am "conveniently" leaving it out because it is a vaguely worded "appears..."
piece of journalese which contradicts the rest of the article and established
fact. Nobody has disputed that SpaceX contacted NOAA first, there's no dispute
that they process 40-odd applications every year, no dispute that the policy
of licensing remote sensing has been in effect for a long time, amended more
than once and that recent moves in the legislature (recent as in _a couple of
years ago, so SpaceX really had time to notice_ ) have been proposals to
_relax_ it rather than to strengthen it.

And yeah, also no dispute that the government grants missions planned by its
own agencies a remote sensing license - can't imagine why you would expect it
to be otherwise tbh? But agreed, enough indents :-)

------
blhack
Good grief this whole thing is stupid.

1) The idea that an NOAA regulation is going to stop somebody from acting
militarily against the US. (A Chinese military command somewhere: "Sir! We
cannot point our spy satellites at the earth yet because the US NOAA hasn't
issued us a license yet!" "DRATS!")

2) The idea that somebody doing something nefarious would even be _sharing_
this information with anybody.

3) The idea that any of this should be covering what is clearly a utility
meant to display the effectiveness of a stage seperation.

This whole thing sounds like an April fool's joke to me.

~~~
vilhelm_s
I think the idea is more that the regulation will stop private U.S. companies
from acting militarily against other countries. E.g., the U.S. has a treaty
with Israel that forbids publishing high-resolution satellite imagery of
Israel, and one of the functions of the licensing system is to implement that
treaty.

------
jordz
No entity should be able to license or control broadcasting of the Earth.
Whoever said it made them wince, I am also in a state of wincing.

~~~
WiseWeasel
We should attack the problem from the other direction, and for entities
without special exemptions, require proof of consent from any identifiable
people and organizations whose activity can be discerned in the recordings
they retain or make commercial use of.

------
jacquesm
The public interest would appear to outweigh the narrow rights of the
licensing office here.

And it's not as if we don't have hours of footage from those places at the
same resolution already so whatever horse they're trying to keep in the barn
has already bolted.

~~~
baldfat
> The public interest would appear to outweigh the narrow rights of the ....

If only that was ever used to make regulation. We might have a decent
copyright law by now in the US. I still blame Micky Mouse and Disney for all
bad copy right law.

~~~
jacquesm
I think that that is better explained by the power of money in American
politics than anything else. On another note, copyright laws in the rest of
the world aren't that much better which means that even that is only a partial
explanation at best.

But I take your point that public interest is rarely the thing foremost on
politicians minds when they create their laws.

------
alexandercrohde
I don't understand all the "Let's assume this law is very good in most cases"
sentiment here. You can assume anything you want about government, but I will
not assume competence or good intent, and I think if you did more historical
research you wouldn't either.

------
sschueller
Come on, this is the kind of crap that fuels flat earthers.

~~~
jstanley
Which is another way of saying "this is some evidence in favour of the theory
that the earth is actually flat and the government is trying to hide it".

------
alexhawdon
Seems to me the quick solution would be to grant a blanket exemption based on
the resolution of surface features.

------
jnamaya
The US owns the earth now? What a croc of shit.

~~~
notahacker
No, the US regulates US-based companies, just like in any other field. This
includes making the ability to conduct large scale surveillance of the earth's
surface subject to license.

~~~
zeveb
> No, the US regulates US-based companies, just like in any other field. This
> includes making the ability to conduct large scale surveillance of the
> earth's surface subject to license.

I wonder how that comports with this limitation on the U.S.: ‘Congress shall
make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …’ Seems pretty
cut-and-dried to me that if they launched the camera, they have a right to
publish the photos.

~~~
ubernostrum
Why don't you try your theory about it being impossible to prohibit
photos/videos by wandering into a military facility with a camera and
explaining to the angry men with guns that they can't legally interfere with
you?

I'll wait for you to report back on how that goes.

------
exabrial
Government over-regulation at its finest. I can certainly understand the FCC
being involved here to manage bandwidth allocations, but a license to send
pictures is ridiculous and is walking into murky water with First Amendment
rights.

------
TorKlingberg
I bet this law exists because the military asked for it. Spy satellites have
military importance, so they want control over anything that looks even
slightly like a spy satellite.

~~~
some_random
Maybe, but I don't think so. This seems like a silly regulation someone at
this "extremely small" office (or the NOAA I suppose) came up with that
slipped its way onto the books one way or another.

~~~
grigjd3
Whatever it "seems" like to you, it is a law passed by congress and signed by
the president.

~~~
qsqrRvUF
That doesn't necessarily mean the president or anyone in congress actually
read it.

------
threepipeproblm
Sigh, the flatearthers are going to love this one.

------
IanWambai
This is really, really dumb.

------
ChuckMcM
I find the suggestion that the Government was pissed off at Elon for launching
his roadster to Mars oddly compelling. SpaceX does make a lot of the
"entrenched" space capability look bad in comparison.

That said, I think a simple lawsuit would settle this issue and help give
clarity to the powers granted the NOAA. I expect a number of Cubesat
experiments might get caught up in this escalation of power as well. And while
you're more likely to get someone to say that a cubesat with a re-purposed
10MP cell phone camera is a "remote sensing" camera I think it would be
difficult to convince a judge and jury such cameras were a threat to the
national security, regardless of where they were pointed.

------
2g67vupsoknn
TFW you blew your entire CGI budget on a car commercial

------
msl09
But why does the license exist?

~~~
pmorici
The NOAA statement on the issue seems to imply that the rule exists because
the government wants a measure of control over images of the Earth's surface
for "national security" reasons.

[0] [http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-statement-on-
todays-b...](http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-statement-on-todays-
broadcast-of-spacex-iridium-5-launch)

~~~
a012
What's the point? Doesn't China, Russia, and EU have a lot of sats and what if
they decide to broadcast like SpaceX? US will threaten them?

~~~
oh_sigh
The whole point is to prevent giving away information to other countries who
don't have it already, not some conspiracy to prevent Americans from seeing
the earth. Other countries are free to broadcast their data to the world if
they like. The US will probably learn nothing new about the Earth but would
learn of at least some chacteristics of other country's satellite tech

~~~
bpicolo
> prevent giving away information to other countries who don't have it already

Pretty easy for a nation-state to launch a surveillance satellite with much
better optics, I imagine.

~~~
some_random
I suppose nation-states aren't the only ones who'd like information on US
military bases/infrastructure/"nationalsecurityinterests", but I honestly
think it's irrelevant. If we were discussing serious imaging systems then
sure, but it's pretty clear that a webcam isn't going to give anyone any
meaningful information.

~~~
grigjd3
The point is that you don't hand out the license trivially. Yes, spacex is
just discussing this in the context of a glorified webcam, but webcasts aren't
their only business. Such a license needs to consider the whole business. Now
the NOAA perhaps should consider a type of limited license, but they can't
assume the only imagery technology spacex is interested in is webcams.

------
jefe_
Functionally, these all seem very similar:

SpaceX broadcasting from a camera attached to a Rocket

Boeing broadcasting from a camera attached to a Plane

Toyota broadcasting from a camera attached to a SUV

James Cameron broadcasting from a camera attached to a Submarine

~~~
Rebelgecko
Toyota would have a hard time driving their SUV to Area 51

It would probably not go over well if James Cameron broadcasted from directly
under an American aircraft carrier, or next to a nuclear submarine

SpaceX put a camera up in orbit against the law. I suspect that NOAA was
willing to look the other way when they did something borderline (2nd stage
cameras), but now that they've pushed it too far they're not willing to cut
them as much slack

------
crististm
This license is probably in place to cover situations where high resolution
cameras in commercial satellites could compete with military surveillance
ones.

------
pi-squared
Sounds like they needed an excuse to cover up something.

------
UncleEntity
Couldn't they just get someone in the office with a ham license to become the
"broadcaster" and do without all the NOAA license shenanigans?

------
jakelarkin
let me guess, ULA filed a complaint?

------
a-fried-egg
It's because SpaceX is becoming "too successful" at what it does.

------
rednerrus
Elon on the final level of Flat Earth Adventures.

------
vilhelm_s
This kindof puts that law requiring a copyright license for taking photos of
the Eiffel tower into perspective. You now need a license for taking photos
of... the Earth?

------
jerkstate
So SpaceX either knew about the regulation and ignored it (without clarifying
with the regulatory body if it applied to them), or didn't know about the
regulation. I'm not sure which is worse but both are bad.

I think SpaceX is doing cool, groundbreaking stuff, but they should be
following the rules.

~~~
jccooper
It's such a nonsense application of the rule that the people _doing_ the
regulation didn't even think about it for at least 8 years
([https://youtu.be/fshVNOJ-Wtg?t=296](https://youtu.be/fshVNOJ-Wtg?t=296)) so
it's hard to fault SpaceX.

It's also an extremely good bet that NOAA also recently got an application
from ULA.
([https://youtu.be/FUJ9Dtyiclw?t=213](https://youtu.be/FUJ9Dtyiclw?t=213))

~~~
TallGuyShort
Unless there's a licensing process that makes the agency money or shows up in
the numbers they show their bosses (like in this case), no regulatory agency
in my experience is ever willing to clarify if something is legal or not.
Their only response is to hire legal advice, and they'll take legal action
against you if you're wrong. It's stupid that just knowing if the government
will let you do something often requires paying money to a private business
licensed by that same government for an educated prediction that you could
very well still end up being responsible for if it's wrong.

