
FCC Accuses Stealthy Startup of Launching Rogue Satellites - visviva
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites/fcc-accuses-stealthy-startup-of-launching-rogue-satellites
======
ChuckMcM
Wow, I love this story. It raises so many intriguing issues in one small
space.

First, while the FCC clearly has US authority over spectrum, how is it that
its charter includes satellite launches? Or conversely, if they SpaceBees
never turn on did they violate the license? And on what basis does the FCC get
to evaluate the risk of other things in orbit, isn't that NORAD's job? And
what if this had been a startup in Bangalore or Mumbai, would they be getting
crap from the FCC for launching the very same satellites?

Now I understand the leverage the FCC can use with US based launch services,
sort "Follow our rules and do what we say or we will have the FAA pull your
launch permit." but that leverage doesn't really exist for foreign launch
services. Heck the Russians might launch stuff like this just to irritate the
FCC and tweak our noses.

And it raises a whole different set of questions about cubesats. How closely
are they inspected at Integration time? Is is possible to create a cubesat
that looks and smells like it is doing one mission but is actually doing a
different mission? What happens when someone launches an orbital spy satellite
network? Not the one you would expect taking pictures of people's back yards,
but a collection of satellites with large lenses that are looking _up_ and
_over_ at the things coming up from the ground. Imagine an ion engine powered
small sat that works its way up to GEO and snaps pictures of all the
satellites it can find and beams those images down to earth.

Let's say their quad systems stays under the weight of the typical cubesat
limit of 1.33kg. That means they could launch 100,000+ satellites on a single
F9 load. And while that would be silly (They would all be in a very similar
orbit) it suggests how easily someone could (in theory) just "throw up" a
covert microwave based communication network on a very small number of
launches.

These are definitely 21st century sorts of problems :-).

~~~
nostrademons
It also raises a bunch of issues around:

\- Kessler Syndrome, a la "Is the plotline of _Gravity_ inevitable with
increasing commercialization of space?"

\- Weaponization of space. If you could get 4 unauthorized satellites up on a
launch that was forbidden because "they're a danger to other satellites",
could you do the same with satellites that are intentionally a danger to other
satellites? Could a private company knock out the U.S's spy satellites at just
the moment they are most needed? Could it set up its own spy network?

\- How about ABM defense? Could a private company create a network of smart
space junk with the purpose of stopping a potential nuclear war before it
starts? (Incidentally, such an organization could end up in the position of
both saving humanity and opposing U.S. national interests, given that the U.S.
has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on Earth, which should make
Americans wonder if U.S. national interests are aligned with humanity. Crimson
Tide was a great movie.)

\- More generally: nation states have traditionally had a monopoly around
certain technologies. Spaceflight, weaponry, cryptography, communication
networks. That monopoly is fraying, or in some cases, has already frayed
beyond repair. What does that mean for the power balance on earth, and for
social organization on the planet? There are some private organizations that
are arguably more powerful than full nation-states nowadays.

21st century sorts of problems indeed. At least the 21st century looks like
it'll be exciting, if somewhat scary.

~~~
bhelkey
> Given that the U.S. has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on Earth

[1] Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on Earth.

[1] [https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-
nuclear-...](https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-
forces/)

~~~
dboreham
Largest stockpile of weapons that work?

~~~
biesnecker
Maybe? Only one way to find out really.

~~~
evanweaver
Decommission them all; then you will know for sure.

~~~
clarkmoody
The only winning move is not to play.

------
Thorondor
A lot of people are wondering why the FCC has jurisdiction over this. The
reason is that Swarm is operating an unauthorized experimental radio station
on American soil. [0] That's always been illegal, as it should be.

That shouldn't be the end of the discussion, though. Why didn't the FCC grant
Swarm a license in the first place? Basically, the FCC claims the right to
take action to minimize the danger of orbital debris created by US-operated
satellites. [1] According to the FCC, this jurisdiction is granted by the
Communications Act of 1934. [2] But that requires a _very_ broad
interpretation of the law. If promoting "the larger and more effective use of
radio in the public interest" lets the FCC make regulations about orbital
debris, then surely it also applies to just about anything that has a radio.

I don't like what Swarm did here -- I think they are legitimately endangering
other satellites -- but I don't like the precedent the FCC is setting either.
This seems like a classic case of bureaucratic overreach to me.

Primary sources:

[0] Swarm's license application:
[https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/442_Print.cfm?mode=cu...](https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/442_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=77426&license_seq=78134)

[1] FCC experimental license rules, section 5.64:
[http://www.fr.com/files/Uploads/attachments/fcc/FCC_Part%205...](http://www.fr.com/files/Uploads/attachments/fcc/FCC_Part%205-Experimental-
License-Rules.pdf)

[2] "Mitigation of Orbital Debris", section (III)(A):
[https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-130A1.p...](https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-130A1.pdf)

~~~
applecube
There has been an ongoing struggle inside the industry to determine which US
agency gets to be the "debris" authority when it comes to licensing. From what
I understand, NORAD doesn't want be in licensing. The FCC is a poor fit and is
over-reaching. Plus the international community doesn't necessarily want
America being the authority on what you can and can't launch.

The real answer here, which the FCC just shoved right to the forefront, is
that there should be a single international independent body to sign off on a
debris analysis on all items placed in space. But then again, no country wants
that because they either want the control for themselves or thrive on the gray
area.

For the commercial launch industry, they don't want that either because most
of them leave their spent rocket bodies up there (which are basically big
rusting tanks with unspent fuel vapors). For the big old space, they don't
want it either because they would be forced to admit that they have a fiscal
responsibility to operate their satellites until they die and that their
active-deorbit plans are bullshit.

What shocks me is that neither Spaceflight nor ISRO checked on the license.
This is why you have mass dummies (big hunks of metal that approximate the
satellite that can be launched in their place).

On top of that, shame on the CEO of Swarm. You could make the argument that
she set trust in the industry back by years. She should pack it up. You don't
get to ask for forgiveness instead of permission when you're playing in space.
It belongs it everyone.

~~~
azernik
Until there is such a body, every country is responsible for the objects its
citizens put into space according to the Outer Space Treaty. The interesting
legal question to me is why it's on the US (where the satellites were built
and from which they're being operated) over India (where the satellites were
launched from).

(Which question, btw, shows the need for an international regulatory agency
like you're describing.)

~~~
avar
Because Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty says that the US, not India, is
responsible for the activities of a US company launching from India.

------
kylehotchkiss
The linked FCC letter
([https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=203152&x=.](https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=203152&x=.))
actually explained their rationale well (satellite too small to track with
monitoring equipment so there was no way to warn other operators their
satellite was about to be pummeled) and their idea to broadcast its location
with GPS was not considered reliable enough.

Still seems weird the FCC and not NASA or the Air Force makes this call. Isn't
the FCC busy diving into rooms full of gold coins from Verizon?

~~~
jrochkind1
How does "global positioning system" work in space anyway? Was "GPS" an
analogy? Is it actually using signals from GPS satellite network to determine
position?

~~~
cpncrunch
It would work the same way it does on earth. Spacebee satellites are at 500km
and GPS satellites are at 20,000km, so it shouldn't be a problem getting a
signal. You can even pick up GPS at higher orbits than 20000km, but it is more
difficult:

[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/401315/gps-in-
space/](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/401315/gps-in-space/)

~~~
atommclain
I was under the impression that all non-military GPS devices did not work
after certain thresholds such as speed were exceeded to prevent them from
being used in missiles.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinating_Committee_for_Mul...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinating_Committee_for_Multilateral_Export_Controls#Legacy)

~~~
incompatible
Have to wonder if any manufacturers in non-COCOM countries are able to supply
such units.

~~~
askvictor
Or how long before you can get around this with an SDR.

Edit: looks like you already can: [http://gnss-sdr.org/](http://gnss-sdr.org/)

------
anfilt
How does the FCC have jurisdiction? Maybe the radio broadcast in US territory.
However, it was not even an American rocket?

I am sorry, but not sure how the FCC has any jurisdiction here. However, I can
see the issue with them being small and hard to and track, but still not sure
how FCC is even the right entity to handle this.

However, the US is also is weird for instance taxes are based of citizenship
not were you live geographically. For instance if you have lived in Japan for
10 years you still would have to pay taxed back to the US.

~~~
giarc
>The FCC is responsible for regulating commercial satellites, including
minimizing the chance of accidents in space.

Perhaps also important is that Swarm is an American company.

~~~
craftyguy
And the FCC is a group chartered with regulating interstate communications,
not with being orbital traffic cops.

~~~
olympus
The FCC is charged with regulating communications of all distances, not just
those crossing state lines. One of their primary missions is ensuring fair
access to the wireless spectrum and keeping someone from jamming it and
preventing others from communicating legally. Satellites must communicate to
be effective, and satellites form a significant portion of our communications
backbone. A rogue satellite operating over spectrum it isn't licensed for
prevents other from using that spectrum, and a rogue satellite colliding with
another satellite could cause debris and disable a bunch of other
communications platforms.

The FCC isn't being orbital traffic cops, it is doing its job. While the FCC
has done a bunch of distasteful stuff regarding net neutrality recently, the
folks taking actin agains Swarm are clearly in the right.

------
tempestn
Everyone's talking about the FCC and whether the launch should have been
allowed; what I'm curious about is how the Swarm people thought they could get
away with this. They obviously know that the satellites will be tracked; did
they really think the FCC would just say, "Oh, well, since you already did it,
I guess it's ok..." It doesn't make any sense.

~~~
olympus
It's possible that they have nobody on their team with any government
experience nor space experience. This is a fairly common way that startups
fail, they think they have a great idea but are unfamiliar with the regulatory
environment they must operate in (banking and medical startups are
particularly vulnerable). Consider that a cubesat launch costs about $40k, add
in $10k for the satellite cost, you're looking at just $200k to launch these
satellites. Add in a spare system or three, multiply by a generous margin of
error, and you're still under half a million bucks. That's basically the same
as hiring a couple employees. To further realize that they could be doing this
on the cheap, these are apparently 0.25U sized cubesats, which are even
cheaper to launch than the "standard" 1U size:
[http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/spacebee.htm](http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/spacebee.htm)

They don't necessarily need to be a huge team with a bunch of experienced
industry insiders to pull this off. They could just as easily be a couple of
recent grads with some of Grandma's inheritance from selling her house in Palo
Alto.

~~~
tempestn
But it sounds like the co-founders both _do_ have significant space industry
experience. Maybe not directly with the regulatory aspects, but a little bit
of common sense...

~~~
olympus
I would argue that their actions indicate they don't have the experience they
would like people to believe- not that I blame them for that part, every
founder should try to make themselves look better to investors. They could be
padding their resume or even outright lying, but anyone who says "it's no big
deal if our license got denied, we'll launch without addressing _any_ of the
issues and try to work it out later" is not an industry veteran. Trying to
keep to a timeline by going around the established process isn't what
professionals do. Even Elon Musk plays ball with government regulators while
pushing his ideas.

Edit: the article describes them as an engineer that developed a satellite
_concept_ for Google and the other sold his previous company to Apple. Neither
of them have experience in this regulatory environment. Neither Google nor
Apple are space companies. These founders are going in on the tech aspect of
distributed computing in space, I doubt either has launched a satellite
before.

~~~
forapurpose
> "it's no big deal if our license got denied, we'll launch without addressing
> any of the issues and try to work it out later" is not an industry veteran.

Uber did that, in a different industry, and has had success. I'm appalled by
the behavior, but perhaps others are following their model.

~~~
b098hsadfpojn
What's the worst case scenario for Uber? Economic destruction of taxi
medallions, company gets shut down. What's the worst case scenario for Swarm?
It takes out a satellite, causes economic destruction, and gets the military-
industrial complex all mad at you.

------
ajnin
The rate of satellite launches seems to be increasing at an ever-greater rate.
With the advent of SpaceX, ISRO, and many new actors in the launch business
space has never been so cheaply accessible. A runaway Kessler Effect
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome)),
making space access for everyone problematic, seems now a real possibility,
especially if a few bad actors launch junk into space with disregard for the
safety of others.

I'm not sure who should be responsible, but some coordination at the
international level seems necessary to make sure this does not happen.

~~~
periya
ISRO has been around since the 70s

~~~
ajnin
Yes, but I was under the impression that they have ramped up their commercial
launches substantially in the last few years, and that they are sending more
small satellites clusters recently. Maybe I'm wrong about their launch
history, but my main point still stands.

------
walrus01
Satellite industry perspective here. I read the PDF copy of the FCC letter. It
appears the FCC wants to ban them because the dimensions of each satellite are
too small to accurately determine the TLEs of (two line elements) using the
USAF/NORAD spacecraft tracking systems.

There is nothing _RF_ regulatory mentioned in the FCC's letter.

Does this mean the FCC has stated a position that it has a problem with all
cubesats of similar sized launched by all other nations?

It is kind of weird that the FCC is in charge of orbital debris mitigation and
avoidance. If the US feds intend to regulate satellite dimensions and orbits
it needs to be done by some sort of aerospace experts.

~~~
JorgeGT
For what is worth, it appears that the TLEs _are_ known and they have NORAD
IDs:
[https://www.n2yo.com/database/?name=spacebee#results](https://www.n2yo.com/database/?name=spacebee#results)

~~~
walrus01
the interesting question will be, if the satellite bus size is below the
reliable detection threshold for space monitoring radar, if the TLEs will
remain valid after they have experienced 6 months of atmospheric drag and
expansion/contraction of the atmosphere with solar cycles.

[https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/12/081216-eart...](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/12/081216-earth-
breathes.html)

[https://www.sciencenews.org/article/solar-wind-pushes-
atmosp...](https://www.sciencenews.org/article/solar-wind-pushes-atmospheric-
breathing)

for example the GOCE satellite lasted longer than expected because its end-of-
life period happened to coincide with a lower than usual amount of solar wind
activity.

------
dfox
There seems to be lot of questions about exactly why is this in FCC's
jurisdiction. In fact the authority for authorizing commercial satellites and
allocating their orbital positions is ITU, but you don't deal with ITU
directly but through it's national member organisation, which in US in this
case is FCC (for some other things you might want from ITU you would have to
go through NIST or maybe even GSA).

------
mcguire
" _The U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Special Operations Command has also
expressed interest in using Swarm’s network for “tracking and geo-locating a
large number of items on the ground and at sea.”_ "

Hypothetically, could the DoD have given them the go-ahead without informing
the FCC?

------
aftbit
Isn't there a ton of space debris, ranging in size from mm to meters? A 1U
cubesat is 10x10x11cm, and these satellites are listed as 10x10x2.8cm. What
are the size bounds of the "danger zone" of items that are too small to spot
reliably but still large enough to damage satellites? Would a 1cm³ / ~10 gram
steel bolt be a problem? What about all of the chunks of debris created by
previous space collisions and anti-satellite weapons?

Also, it seems like either (A) the satellites are big enough to track using
the space surveillance network, negating the FCC's complaint, or (B) the
satellites are too small to see reliably, meaning that it would be hard to pin
any collision on these satellites. Perhaps there is a gray area where we can
observe it, but not reliably.

I wonder how the FCC makes these decisions. The article mentioned that Swarm
included passive radar reflectors, but that those will only help boost the
radar cross-section for a small band of frequencies that are only used by a
small fraction of the SSN. Ideally, our detection capability will improve over
time and this will cease to be an issue. It would be a shame if no US company
could ever launch a sub-1U satellite.

~~~
walrus01
Considering the limits of battery storage (in terms of Wh per kg, and Wh per
cubic cm) and triple-junction GaAs PV cells. I question how useful a 1/4U
cubesat can really be, if it needs to have both TT&C/bus management computer,
some sort of Rx/TX radio to serve a purpose, possibly a single orientation
gyro, some form of cold gas thruster for maneuvering, etc.

Even with a 6U size cubesat you are very limited in terms of data rate
throughput (in Mbps) you can achieve in bands above VHF/UHF. Simply due to the
size limits of antenna you can fold down and the Shannon-Hartley limit.

~~~
tempestn
I don't think they're too concerned with throughput. The idea was just some
level of connectivity to retrieve basic information from areas that currently
have none. The communication would literally be limited to what the satellite
could store in onboard memory.

~~~
evjim
Sounds like what you can already bounce off amateur space APRS repeaters
already for free. Just would be nice to have a few more.

------
nxc18
Organizations that willfully violate the law, especially in ways that pose
threats to the lives and property of others, should be terminated.

The US government granted them incorporation (or some similar status) and all
the privileges that came with that. I wish the government would raise the cost
of non-compliance by exercising it's right to revoke those privileges.

~~~
oh_sigh
Couldn't this company just incorporate in Taiwan or India and keep doing what
they are doing without any need for US approval?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Couldn 't this company just incorporate in Taiwan or India and keep doing
> what they are doing_

No. They would have to move operations abroad and convince a foreign country
they’re worth the risk. (American operations of foreign companies are still
subject to U.S. law.)

~~~
asdsa5325
Considering they launched the satellites in India's rocket, I think India
would be fine with them.

~~~
parent5446
Not exactly. It's unclear how they were able to launch successfully, but I
doubt whatever mistake that occurred is indicative of the Indian government
agreeing with the project. It's more likely they used social engineering of
some sort to get their satellites on the rocket.

~~~
mcguire
They apparently used a third-party to fit in with the other secondary
passengers:

" _Paperwork filed with the FCC by Swarm Technologies shows that it was
planning to use Spaceflight, a Seattle-based launch services company, to get
its satellites on board the PSLV. Spaceflight’s website shows that it did in
fact supply 19 of the 31 satellites for January’s PSLV launch, including some
with the SpaceBees unique 0.25U dimensions._

" _Last year, Spaceflight senior mission manager Adam Hadaller told Spectrum
that it checked all its customers’ safety regulations and communication
licenses before launch. However, in response to questions this week,
Spaceflight would only say: “Spaceflight has never knowingly launched a
customer who has been denied an FCC license. It is the responsibility of our
customers to secure all FCC licenses.”_

" _Neither Spaceflight nor ISRO could immediately confirm whether they
routinely check launch customers’ FCC licenses. If they do not, there would
seem to be little to stop satellite makers from deploying any device they
choose into orbit._ "

------
Glyptodon
It seems crazy to me that people with any kind of background or knowledge of
satellites and aerospace would knowingly do this.

~~~
wmf
People with background and knowledge gave us "too big to fail" systems that
are overpriced by 10x.

~~~
greglindahl
That's a hilarious comment. The New Space industry doesn't want orbital
debris, either.

~~~
wmf
My point is that the line between disruptive innovation and reckless
crackpottery isn't always clear, and the solution to one reckless startup
isn't to give up on innovation.

~~~
planteen
Trying to make it in the space industry of all places with the government as
an adversary is suicidal. In many commercial space ventures, the government
(through its many arms) is often one of your largest customers.

------
alexandercrohde
I'm not sure how to feel about this. I know on the one hand that I feel
communications in the US are an oligopopaly that hurts innovation and
consumers. However, I'm not versed in whether satellite collision is a
credible threat or merely an administrative hurdle to keep competition away
from power-players.

I also assume pretty much everybody else who is so upset on this thread is
also unaware of how satellites and debris are tracked
nationally/internationally, so I'm confused why opinions are so black-and-
white.

~~~
wmf
_communications in the US are an oligopopaly that hurts innovation and
consumers_

That has nothing to do with it, since the FCC has issued plenty of licenses to
companies that follow the rules.

------
NotSammyHagar
How much does it cost to launch 4 of these 1/4 u satellites? Wikipedia says
$100k per cubesat, other sources say a little less. Just think, that's within
the reach of thousands of us software engineers - at least a few launches.
It's like one year's mortgage payment in the bay area (I kid a little). But
regardless, that's incredible! it could be your retirement hobby - you pay
someone for a 'standard' cubestate, you program it, you put some cameras and
other sensors on it, you will pass over anything in the world, your own photos
of area 51 or whatever. Actually, would it be legal to take your own photos
from space? Maybe to work around this issue you'd have to set up an llc in
mexico or the bahamas. Still, I have to keep reminding myself, someone who was
a young teenage when cosmos came out, I am living in the world of tomorrow!

~~~
dannyw
I can't wait for CubeSat-as-a-Service startups.

------
JumpCrisscross
Swarm tried to get FCC approval and failed [1]. It then decided to go ahead
its plans anyway.

[1]
[https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=203152&x=](https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=203152&x=).

~~~
asdsa5325
It decided to go ahead with it's plans anyway _in a different country_. India
doesn't need the FCC's approval. The fact that they are an American company
doesn't matter. They did not violate any FCC regulations.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _The fact that they are an American company doesn 't matter_

You are wrong. American companies are subject to American law, domestically
and overseas. Moreover, there are international rules governing satellite
orbits and communications. These rely on countries overseeing their
satellites. That entire regulatory regime was circumvented by Swarm taking
advantage of the FCC’s light-tough regulatory approach (with respect to
satellites) and the Indian government’a similar trust in Swarm having gotten
its paperwork in order before shipping its bird for deployment.

~~~
asdsa5325
> American companies are subject to American law, domestically and overseas

Absolutely not true. American companies don't pay foreign employees American
minimum wage, for example.

~~~
djrogers
US minimum wage laws are not written to apply globally, but if they were US
companies _would_ have to follow those laws.

------
greggarious
Welcome to the cyberpunk future where companies shoot illegal satellites into
space

\m/

------
tomphoolery
does the FCC actually have authority to govern space?

because, you know, it's space...

like what are they gonna do about it if the startup relocated to another
country?

~~~
dublinben
Exactly. It's mentioned twice in the article that the FCC regulates this area,
but these were launched from India. What jurisdiction does the US FCC have
over a device launched into space from a foreign country?

~~~
jimrandomh
Launched from India, but made and owned by an American company. The FCC has
jurisdiction over the satellites because it has jurisdiction over the
satellites' owner.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _The FCC has jurisdiction over the satellites because it has jurisdiction
> over the satellites ' owner_

Moreover, if those satellites smash into another country’s bird, the U.S.
taxpayer is ultimately liable.

~~~
adventured
There's another step further there.

Damage US military satellites - perhaps something necessary when it comes to
national security - and the US Government can destroy you no matter who or
where you are, short of being under the express protection of Beijing or
Moscow.

------
dpflan
What companies or institutions are working on space debris analysis, location,
tracking, and clean-up orchestration?

~~~
rtkwe
The US DoD maintains a very accurate account of objects above about a softball
size. As for cleanup there's no one with a working system out there yet, I've
seen quite a few different universities with early projects and some other
ideas like ground based lasers but nothing is running that I've heard of.

[http://www.stratcom.mil/Media/Factsheets/Factsheet-
View/Arti...](http://www.stratcom.mil/Media/Factsheets/Factsheet-
View/Article/976414/usstratcom-space-control-and-space-surveillance/)

~~~
dpflan
Thanks. I recall a presentation by researchers from MIT's Lincoln Lab
discussion space object tracking as an area of research.

> [https://www.ll.mit.edu/](https://www.ll.mit.edu/)

------
lwansbrough
The Internet of Space Shit is coming and it's going to ruin your children's
chances of space travel.

------
Abishek_Muthian
This could be a milestone which accelerated the process for updating space
laws to govern commercial launches to space without compromising the right to
do so and without jeopardizing the safety. It must be the role of consulting
company in US to ensure that the satellites which were on-boarded adhered to
the FCC protocols, as for Antrix Ltd (commerical arm of ISRO) which likely
communicated with the consulting company; it didn't have the need to do so.
In-fact that particular launch PSLV-C40 included defence payload (Carbonite-2)
from RAF as well, so unless the international space laws dictate specific
terms to launching agencies like United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS) for our oceans; these are bound to happen.

------
debt
“Spaceflight has never knowingly launched a customer who has been denied an
FCC license. It is the responsibility of our customers to secure all FCC
licenses.”

Best way to avoid saying you've launched illegal satellites.

~~~
ineedasername
Yeah that looked like a bit ol' admission of "We didn't check the licenses"

------
shraken
I'm kind of curious how the KickSat project achieved regulatory approval back
in (2014?) for their Sprites. IIRC there were 100 sprite PCB's released from a
Cubesat with a UHF radio and chip solar panels on each sprite.
[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/zacinaction/kicksat-
you...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/zacinaction/kicksat-your-
personal-spacecraft-in-space/updates)

------
joshfraser
While I'm not advocating space trash, I'm having a hard time imaging a
collision being even remotely possible given how tiny these things are and how
massive space is.

~~~
cmurf
This is just a variation on big sky theory. Collision is unlikely, but not
impossible. And if it happens, the cascading effect is a really
disproportionate consequence.

Also, you make a common mistake by emphasizing size while ignoring momentum. A
quarter going 18000 mph hitting anything else in space is a problem, perhaps
in particular the inability to predict the consequence when big sky theory
doesn't come to the rescue.

~~~
joshfraser
I understand that, but my point was the small size also decreases the odds of
a collision happening in the first place.

~~~
PeterisP
Does it? If the orbits intersect, a large object is almost as likely to be hit
by a flake of paint as a cubesat; and by a cubesat vs something twice as big.
The difference is that a flake of paint will likely be just a dent, and a
cubesat will destroy whatever it hits.

------
darepublic
What will happen when more and more private organizations gain the ability to
launch things into orbit? It's pretty damn intriguing but also a can of worms.

~~~
greglindahl
They're required to get a license from their nation, even if they're private.
So "what will happen" is what's currently happening: you have to get a
license.

------
known
Is this relevant to Chinese Tiangong-1 space station that is going to crash on
Earth
[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/09/tiangong-1-s...](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/09/tiangong-1-scientists-
unsure-where-chinese-space-station-will-crash-to-earth)

------
crb002
I'm most worried about F=MA. Micro satellites that are almost all fuel
attaching to large pieces of space debris for extra mass and tug boating them
into a collision course with military satellites.

Large satellites are the new air craft carrier sized targets. Small satellites
that can reboot after an EMP unharmed are the only option.

------
username223
Space is not really a great place to "be naughty." High-velocity trash can
ruin a lot of expensive equipment, and the US has been able to nuke space for
50 years:

    
    
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
    

Please, folks, just follow the rules.

------
billfruit
Does this imply that ISRO launched satellites which is debris risk without due
diligence. I always had a feeling that their launches with huge number of
small satellites were largely a publicity gimmick, sort of cover for their
troubles with developing realiable heavy lift vehicles.

------
piker
Aside from all of the interesting jurisdictional points ITT, this piece reads
like a media hit. If that's right, it might imply the founders are either
confident they're in the clear legally, or looking to establish a precedent
that they hope to use to defeat regulation.

------
fapjacks
The FCC is renowned for going _balls to the wall_ with enforcement. This is
going to be really interesting to watch unfold! I am guessing that the FCC
will use whatever means at its disposal to get what it wants here.

------
Para2016
Phase 1: Move operations to China

Phase 2: let world use network and China can monitor traffic.

Phase 3: profit

------
notimetorelax
I wonder, why did FCC revoke the approval for the larger satellites? Seems
really weird to punish that way. If their decisions have legal power, they
should sue the company, but they must not revoke approval from a valid
request. All that seems like a knee-jerk reaction.

------
ggm
If they emit RF can't they be tracked by RDF?

------
pinewurst
Using "outline.com" bypasses the article block.

------
ct520
Great, litter space more with IOT satellites..

------
neotek
What a time to be alive, seriously.

------
stickdogg
Wow. That's craziness.

------
LyalinDotCom
"What are you in here for?"

I launched some illegal satellites

------
givinguflac
So the fcc can’t mandate title II because it lacks specific authority, but
space debris is totally reasonable? Sigh.

------
logfromblammo
The FAA has jurisdiction over launches through US-controlled airspace. The FCC
has jurisdiction over radio signals originating within the US.

It is debatable whether a satellite in polar LEO is "within the US" for the
purposes of jurisdiction, but even assuming that it is, the FCC can only
theoretically control the use of its radios _while over US territory_.

It has nothing to say whatsoever about whether the satellite can _be there_ in
orbit.

Judge David Sentelle [to FCC]: "You can't regulate washing machines. You can't
rule the world."

So, not the first time the FCC has acted bigger than its britches.

It seems likely there should be a UN mission for avoiding Kessler Syndrome and
perhaps further regulating the tracking and traffic control of human-launched
objects.

~~~
planteen
> It has nothing to say whatsoever about whether the satellite can be there in
> orbit.

I'm not an expert in space law, but I did work in the space industry for a
while. A few things:

The US government in general does have a say in whether certain technology can
be in orbit. If you are making an Earth observing satellite, for instance, you
need to get a permit. If my memory serves me right, I think it is the
Department of Commerce. If you want to point above a certain accuracy, image
above a certain resolution, etc. you are controlled by ITAR. Export that to
India or discuss the technology with a non-US person? You are personally
liable and can go to jail. That gets nailed in your head during ITAR training.

There's nothing new about the FCC asking for orbital debris mitigation
reports. It has been this way for at least a decade.

And the ITU has regulated geo for a long time. I believe they defer to
national agencies, which in this case is the FCC.

------
fenwick67
Headlines from the future: FCC Sues Moon for Unauthorized Transmissions of
Visible Light

~~~
dralley
With the minor caveat that these are peices of metal being flung with reckless
abandon at 17,000 miles per hour, in with the potential to cause a few hundred
million dollars or a few billion dollars in damage if they hit the wrong
thing, that the US government would hold some responsibility for.

~~~
asdsa5325
I can't imagine the US government would hold responsibility for satellites
deployed by India.

~~~
dralley
By an American company on an Indian rocket. Imagine if it hit a Chinese
military satellite.

