
CEO Says Launching Satellites Without FCC Permission Was a ‘Mistake’ - walterbell
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/09/spacebees-swarm-unauthorized-satellite-launch/569395/?single_page=true
======
JumpCrisscross
> _It’s not clear whether the inquiry will result in disciplinary action
> against Swarm, and it’s even less clear what the nature of that would be_

Replicate SEC civil penalties. Swarm gets fined, the company that brokered the
launch gets fined, and the person who submitted the FCC application (hopefully
the CEO) gets fined. In addition, the person who submitted the application and
the company are barred from registering new satellites for N years.

If the CEO represented, to the broker or the Indian government, that she had
the necessary approvals I'd also hand the case to the DoJ for criminal
prosecution under anti-fraud statute.

I'm a huge believer in the commercialization of space. Going renegade in LEO
is like flying around without registering a flight path (EDIT: bad analogy,
more like drilling in a city without a permit). Eventually you'll have a
horrible disaster, and it will have been because you were impatient with a
straightforward process.

~~~
vl
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
> _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
Notice 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
I 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-
sexua...](https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/extraterritorial-sexual-
exploitation-children)

~~~
fipple
And 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.

------
hn_throwaway_99
I still fear the Silicon Valley ethos of "move fast and break things" is
infecting areas where this is outright dangerous: healthcare, self-driving
cars, satellite launches.

It's one thing if your social networking app goes down for a bit or someone's
favorite feature is broken, it's quite another to do something that can have
severe negative consequences (in this case, for humanity at large) if
something goes wrong.

~~~
garmaine
How, exactly, did this ignoring an overreach of FCC authority endanger
humanity? Not generalizations, but this specific case.

When you look at the details of this case, it really doesn't paint a picture
in the way you're interpreting it.

Edit: Explaining for the down-votes. The orbit these things are in are easily
managed and outside of major space traffic zones. The size of the satellites
means they will all burn up on re-entry. Also, see my comment here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17953257](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17953257)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _an overreach of FCC authority endanger humanity?_

One, it isn't overreach. Certifying and registering satellites is the FCC's
legal duty. The threat comes from untracked satellites becoming untracked
orbital debris. This is the same reason we register flight paths.

> _something that FCC doesn 't do and doesn't have any insight into assessing_

The international organization that deals with orbital registration and
regulation is the ITU [1]. The FCC is charge with managing our interactions
with the ITU because, historically, all satellites were communications
satellites. The FAA clears launches (not satellites). (Air Force supervises
launches. USSPACECOM hasn't really existed since it was merged into USSTRATCOM
in 2002.)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunicatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunication_Union)

~~~
garmaine
Of geosynchronous satellites. The distinction is very important.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Of geosynchronous satellites_

What is limited to geosynchronous satellites? ITU jurisdiction covers low-
earth orbits because the risk from orbital debris and radio interference is
not limited to GEO. Partly as a result, FCC jurisdiction is not limited to
GEO.

------
elronster
I know this deals with a US company and the FCC, but suppose a small country
which doesn't belong to any international agreements decides to launch a
satellite into orbit for whatever reason. Who is to stop them? Does anyone
have the right to stop them?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _a small country which doesn 't belong to any international agreements_

Look at the map of ITU member states [1] and tell me where you'll find this
spacefaring nation.

[1]
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Member_s...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Member_states_of_the_International_Telecommunication_Union.png)

~~~
hadrien01
Taking your map, let's imagine I create a company in Western Sahara and launch
a satellite from there. What would happen?

~~~
walterbell
A polite conversation with host country leadership?

~~~
bilbo0s
I'm fair certain the "authorities" in that area of the world would not be
"polite" under the circumstances that hadrien01 postulates.

------
ergothus
Vaguely related point: I noticed a decade ago or so that my renter's insurance
explicitly does not cover damage from a falling satellite. The reason for that
might be:
[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/09/does_my_insurance_cover_falling_satellites.html)

~~~
jackweirdy
I'm curious about the economics of that decision. Was it mentioned
specifically or as an "act of god"?

It seems to me (obviously a layman) that the cost of bad PR that would come
out of that would outweigh the cost of paying out in the incredibly unlikely
circumstance it happened?

Of course, the cost of bad PR is also pretty immaterial since it's so unlikely
to happen so I can't imagine it was given much thought.

~~~
ergothus
It was quite explicit - one of 6 explicit omissions, IIRC (it was a ~decade
ago) in addition to the more general "Act of God" category. I don't recall all
of the other explicit ones, but I believe a nuclear reactor accident was
another of them. I was reading to look for flooding, which WAS covered. FWIW,
this was renter's insurance and not homeowners.

> the cost of bad PR that would come out of that would outweigh the cost of
> paying out

I think you overestimate the impact of bad PR, but if the appropriate foreign
govt is paying, they could likely dodge any problem. Also, they can always
choose TO pay if the PR is bad enough.

------
garmaine
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
The 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

------
craftyguy
> When I asked Spangelo why she didn’t stop the launch when the FCC denied
> Swarm’s application, she said, “Others have been granted applications after
> launching their satellites, so we were still hopeful at that point.”

Is this true?

~~~
mirashii
Yes, it's true.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17953025](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17953025)

~~~
craftyguy
That definitely takes away some of the 'stunning-ness' of their actions... As
the comment you linked points out, I wonder why companies are even allowed to
launch in the first place if they have _no_ approval (regardless of whether
there was an initial rejection or not)..

------
taksintikk
So incorporate outside America and focus on the trying to monetize your
services abroad.

This type of mesh network wouldn’t really be useful in America anyway.

~~~
kodablah
> So incorporate outside America and focus on the trying to monetize your
> services abroad.

Still, as evidenced by the statement of the supporters who put these on the
Indian rocket, there are still many cross-nation gentlemen agreements about
satellite placement. This should be viewed as a good thing (even though many
nation states themselves can usurp the rules they set for their private
sectors), but one assumes a more formal body will have to be introduced as the
satellite count triples soon.

> This type of mesh network wouldn’t really be useful in America anyway.

Disagree unless I misunderstand the purpose of Swarm's tech specifically. But
in general, satellite provided internet is currently the only high speed
option for a significant rural population, many of which are paying over urban
rates for much less. Or even as IoT sensors, again, rural settings benefit,
something the US has a lot of. Where it that type of mesh would be less useful
is in places with better terrestrial coverage. Also wise to approach the
profitable markets first.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _a more formal body will have to be introduced as the satellite count
> triples soon_

This is the ITU [1]. Its rules say countries are responsible for satellites
(a) built by their companies and, to a more limited degree, citizens and (b)
launched by their rockets.

India was supposed to check the satellite's clearance with the American
government. If this satellite had caused any damage, the company, the U.S.
government and the Indian government would have been jointly liable.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunicatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunication_Union)

~~~
tyldum
To complicate matters, the satellite was inside a cluster launcher from
NanoRacks and not a direct payload.

------
benmowa
Nice!! pirate satellites anyone?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_radio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_radio)

------
alphakappa
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?

~~~
stale2002
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
If they are using frequencies over the US, the FCC probably has jurisdiction.

~~~
mirashii
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.

------
bbarn
The reason quoted by the article for FCC dismissal was that they are too small
to be tracked, and thus avoided. Is this a legitimate concern? Even with a
thousand up there, is there real concern for collisions with the amount of
space involved?

I know the "technically correct" answer must be yes, as there's some increase
in chance, but what realistically is that chance?

~~~
raverbashing
If you can put a satellite into orbit that's definitely NOT "too small to be
tracked"

~~~
antsar
These sattelites are tiny; presumably the concern was not _totally_
unwarranted.

However, as stated in TFA, the satellites turned out to be quite trackable.

Live tracking:
[https://platform.leolabs.space/catalog/L19943](https://platform.leolabs.space/catalog/L19943)

~~~
mirashii
Keep in mind that this is live tracking by a commercial company, where the US
Government is more interested in whether it can be tracked by US Government
systems. JSpOC has a variety of detection hardware, but much if it is quite
dated at this point. It's quite likely that the object is too small to be
tracked by JSpOC who coordinates Space Situational Awareness, and so it still
may have posed problems.

~~~
antsar
Well, the article says:

> the SpaceBees have shown themselves to be easily trackable by the Space
> Surveillance Network, as well as by LeoLabs, a California-based company that
> provides orbital data to commercial-satellite operators and others in an
> effort to prevent collisions.

I'm not sure if "Space Surveillance Network" is the same thing as "Space
Situational Awareness", but it does sound like the US Government is capable of
tracking these things.

------
harshulpandav
Kapton tape might not work if this collides with International Space Station.

------
ilamont
I've heard that quite a bit of venture money is flowing into "satellite IoT"
to support things like precision agriculture, monitoring oil pipelines for
leaks, etc. It seems that global regulatory, safety, and security planning are
still at the early stages.

------
paulsutter
Is anyone familiar with space law? What are the specific rules? If they had
used a ground station abroad would they still need FCC approval?

EDIT: Thanks walrus01/mirashii for the EAR/ITAR points, very helpful

~~~
robotmlg
According to the article, the FCC "regulates all satellite launches by
American companies, whether they occur on U.S. soil or elsewhere."

~~~
plopz
Is it the launch of the satellite or the operation afterwards in regards to
communication back to earth that the FCC regulates?

------
dmitrygr
This is typical today, sadly. Move fast and break things. Do whatever you wish
and simply apologize later. It's a scary world we've created for ourselves

~~~
mdpopescu
Yes, things are definitely much better under the careful gaze of bureaucrats.
/s

~~~
kankroc
Bureaucracy is a very real problem in many fields, but when we are talking
about launching potentially untrackable satellite in space, having some form
of oversight is probably good.

------
chris_wot
There was nothing mistaken about what this CEO did. She knew exactly what she
was doing.

~~~
howard941
She's quoted as relying on some understanding that others received permission
retroactively. Not mentioned in the article is whether others have in fact
received retroactive permission, whether it was post-denial, and whether the
launcher ignored the FCC's reasonable concern, launched anyway, and still
received permission.

~~~
chris_wot
And? She was told by the FCC that they were very concerned about the hazardous
nature of the satellites. I'm sorry, but it costs an enormous amount to launch
a satellite, you have to be somewhat worried if this organization couldn't
even address the issues raised by the FCC _before_ they launched!

~~~
howard941
And nothing. She shouldn't have launched without resolving the issue raised by
the commission. You're either misreading my comment or my comment was unclear.
I'm assuming the problem was my lack of clarity.

~~~
chris_wot
I apologise, I think I must have misinterpreted what you were saying :-) the
fault is on my end, not yours!

~~~
howard941
My bad for leaving any ambiguity at all - especially because I agree
completely with your position but failed to make it clear. I apologize. You're
gracious for following up and I appreciate it.

------
fipple
“HN user ‘fipple’ says punching Mike Tyson in the face was a ‘mistake’”

~~~
feadog
HN user 'feadog' wonders if your username is a trad reference or an early
music reference.

~~~
fipple
Mary Bergin ftw

