FCC Accuses Stealthy Startup of Launching Rogue Satellites

Back in January, the FCC pulled permission from Silicon Valley startup Swarm Technologies to launch four satellites into space after what it says was an "apparent unauthorized launch." IEEE Spectrum reports that the unauthorized launch consisted of four experimental satellites that the FCC had decided were too small to be noticed in space -- and hence pose an unacceptable risk of collision -- but which the company may have launched anyway, using a rocket based in India. The federal regulator has since issued a letter to Swarm revoking its authorization for a follow-up mission to launch four new, larger versions of its "SpaceBee" satellites. From the report: Swarm was founded in 2016 by one engineer who developed a spacecraft concept for Google and another who sold his previous company to Apple. The SpaceBees were built as technology demonstrators for a new space-based Internet of Things communications network. Swarm believes its network could enable satellite communications for orders of magnitude less cost than existing options. It envisages the worldwide tracking of ships and cars, new agricultural technologies, and low cost connectivity for humanitarian efforts anywhere in the world. The four SpaceBees would be the first practical demonstration of Swarm's prototype hardware and cutting-edge algorithms, swapping data with ground stations for up to eight years.
[...]
The FCC told the startup that the agency would assess "the impact of the applicant's apparent unauthorized launch and operation of four satellites... on its qualifications to be a Commission licensee." If Swarm cannot convince the FCC otherwise, the startup could lose permission to build its revolutionary network before the wider world even knows the company exists. An unauthorized launch would also call into question the ability of secondary satellite "ride-share" companies and foreign launch providers to comply with U.S. space regulations.

Comments

FCC translation: "What, you went over my helmet!?"

[wierd_w]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Darth Pai does not like it when big telecom's interests are threatened. Your tiny satellites, designed to burn up in the atmosphere, pose a significant risk of colliding with established interests. As such, we refused your launch request, then you went over his helmet, and how he he will crush your balls, pitiful startup weaklings.

fcc?

[ohgary]

Aside from the fact that the satellite may have had radios on them, Not sure where the FCC has any authority over a satellite launched from India. Also not sure why the FCC has any say in how big or small a satellite can be?

Re:fcc?

[BitterOak]

From the article linked to in the summary:

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

Re:fcc?

[TechyImmigrant]

From the article linked to in the summary:

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

In the USA presumably.
I assume Swarm Technologies can simply keep buying launches from non US providers.

Re:fcc?

[Moldiver]

Only for the usa. The rest of the world couldn't care less what the fcc wants.

Re:fcc?

[jarkus4]

But they need FCC approval before anyone in US is allowed to use their satellites. They can deploy them and then seek approval, but it generally increases risk as they may be left with unsalable services after spending money on production and launch

Re: fcc?

[XNormal]

If any USA person or company is involved in any way (investor, employee, subcontractor etc) in a launch the government of the USA considers it as something it has jurisdiction over. IIRC, international space treaties actually require signatories it to regulate such activity by their citizens.

Re:fcc?

[DerekLyons]

Not sure where the FCC has any authority over a satellite launched from India. Also not sure why the FCC has any say in how big or small a satellite can be?

The satellites are owned and operated by a US company, so (by international treaty) the US government has responsibility over them. One of those responsibilities is to ensure they can be operated safely without posing a hazard to other satellites and don't violate any of the various treaties and agreements regarding satellites.

Re: fcc?

[Rockoon]

The old space treaties were crafted precisely to stop commercial space flight, a very real thing in the late 70's to mid 80's. Libya was going to host commercial space launches as it had been recently banned in europe and america, so then europe got all skitish because that was equivalent to Libya getting ICBM's... treaty after treaty was signed..

The governments need to get the hell out of the way.

Re: fcc?

[jd]

Nothing wrong with regulation when it's done with the purpose of maximizing the space for everyone, fairly and reasonably, without imposing an unfair burden on those wishing to enter a market. In other words, regulation is about ensuring decency and fair play.

Unfortunately, that's not what Pad Thai is about. He wants a market that is run exclusively for the big players who are giving him lots of money, and nobody else. Users are of no importance, only money.

Re:frsot psot

[CTU]

If they are to small to be noticed then in increases the chances that they could collide with something else and a collision with anything in space is devistating for both things. Could take out any other satellite or even risk astronauts lives.

Too small to be tracked?

[Robotech_Master]

I thought space radar was capable of keeping track of things as small as flecks of paint. How can any satellite be too small for it?

Re: Too small to be tracked?

[GabeGhearing]

Detecting something and reliably tracking something are two different things. The US is responsible for tracking all satellites mainly because they are the only ones doing it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

The loss of US grants to this company will be devastating. I also wonder what will happen with this companyâ(TM)s space insurance premiums. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

Re: Uh??? Move headquarters out of US?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Ah, the traditional anticompetitive US spaceflight practices again. ;)

Solving the problem

[CptJeanLuc]

I expect a lot more plans for micro-satellites going forward, e.g. with the low-cost 3D-printed rocket company on New Zealand, plus generally lower cost to orbit with new technologies like SpaceX Falcon - so there is probably a need for further international regulation in that area. Both how things go up, how they stay there, and what gets to go up. I don't really know that market, but I wouldn't be surprised if this has not been properly dealt with.

That being said, I would expect part of the solution could involve (a) something similar to transponders in aviation industry so that 'detection' is not a function only of size, (b) some low-mass low-cost technology to increase the satellites' radar signature, and (c) some international system for pro-actively registering satellites' orbits and orbital changes, instead of only relying on everything being tracked.

Re: frsot psot

[Enigma2175]

The US has a duty and authority under the Outer Space Treaty to regulate their citizens to ensure continued access to space for all. Since Swarm Technologies is a US company, it falls under this jurisdiction. India is also a signatory to the treaty and shouldn't have launched this payload if the US didn't approve it. From the wiki article:

"the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty" and that States Parties shall bear international responsibility for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities.

Re: frsot psot

[Immerman]

Or more accurately, your orbit needs to intersect its orbit, which is a far larger set of orbits that allow for collisions. Every time you pass through the intersection on your orbit, it will be at a slightly different place in its own orbit, and sooner or later you will collide.

Orbits also don't remain constant - interaction with the magnetosphere, solar wind, gravitational anomalies, trace atmosphere fluctuations, etc. all chaotically manipulate everything's path so that nothing ever stays in the orbit where you left it. You you have to actively track everything to keep track of where it really is.

Re:Translation:

[caseih]

I think you mean United Launch Alliance, not SpaceX. SpaceX merely gets grudging respect, with politicians grumbling about how SpaceX is milking government contracts, as if ULA hasn't been doing that for its entire existence.

Re:frsot psot

[wonkey_monkey]

Yes. Which would you have a better chance of detecting and avoiding: a car driving towards you at 40mph, or an arrow fired at you at 40mph?

Re:frsot psot

[Antique Geekmeister]

The relative velocities of objects in orbit can also be quite high. A typical low Earth orbit satellite has an altitude of less than 1200 miles, and a velocity of roughly 18,000 miles/hour. A velocity difference of even one tenth of one percent means an impact speed of 18 miles/hour. That may be survivable, but it will damage both. It will also change the orbit of both, in what is essentially a random direction. It's also likely to change the orbit of the smaller object much more than that of the larger object,

Also, most LEO trajectories are similar. They're on a rough plane around the equator, as low as possible, because different orbits and higher altitudes cost much more fuel to achieve. At their typical orbital speed of 18,000 miles/hour and altitudes , they're sweeping through surprisingly large amounts of space throughout their lifetime. And as their orbits degrade, LEO satellites in general _do not carry a lot of fuel_, Typical launch costs today are roughly $50,000/pound. So armor for spacecraft, or fuel and rockets to change orbit after launch, are prohibitively expensive.

LEO is also becoming prohibitively cluttered. NASA and other space agencies are doing their limited best to control launches and to track objects to avoid collisions, but all LEO satellites have their orbits degrade over time, and that degradation is not completely predictable. The smaller the object, the more difficult it is to track as its orbit degrades.

Re: frsot psot

[jd]

On the other hand, the FCC has openly stated it doesn't give a damn about treaties, obligations or laws, and can't be f'ed to regulate. Once they decided that was to be their firm policy, they lost the right to regulate.