SpaceX Can't Broadcast Earth Images Because of a Murky License (cnet.com)

Last Friday, SpaceX wasn't able to give its fans a view of the 10 new Iridium satellites it released into orbit from its Falcon 9 upper stage. Here's why. From a report: Weirdly, company engineers staffing the launch webcast blamed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration restrictions for the blackout from the stage, a staple of most SpaceX launches. Well, at least those that don't involve deploying spy satellites or top-secret space planes. The story behind the missing live feed is a muddy bureaucratic affair. It appears that NOAA has recently decided to start interpreting or enforcing a decades-old law in a new way. The agency says SpaceX and other commercial space companies must apply for a license to broadcast video from orbit.

"The National and Commercial Space Program Act requires a commercial remote sensing license for companies having the capacity to take an image of Earth while on orbit," NOAA said in a statement last week. "Now that launch companies are putting video cameras on stage 2 rockets that reach an on-orbit status, all such launches will be held to the requirements of the law and its conditions."

Comments

F@ck NOAA

[Anonymous Coward]

...and the horse they rode in on.

Security rules

[b0s0z0ku]

Likely due to security -- it's essentially a spy satellite that could image military facilities, etc, by chance. Of course, the info is out there anyway, but it probably wasn't as common when the law was actually written.

On the one hand, I support privacy. On the other hand, transparency about military operations and movements has the potential to destroy the ability of countries to wage war. As a pacifist, I firmly support the latter idea.

Solution? Transfer ownership of the satellites to a shell company in a country that lacks such restrictions, broadcast away?

Re: Security rules

[Tomahawk]

Those images are not in a high enough resolution to cause any such issues for the military. All you can see is the general outline of the large features. The basically send back a HD image, at best. It's not as of they are sending back images that at 10m per pixel, more like 500m per pixel, or higher still.

This is just NOAA wanting more money, because they can.

Public Photography

[pr0t0]

Hasn't it already been tested and settled (in the US) as a First Amendment right? People are free to photograph and shoot video of public spaces that have no expectation of privacy.

Planet Earth: pretty public.

Re:Public Photography

[Anonymous Coward]

I also didn't know that NOAA has supplanted the FCC on broadcast rules as well as extending their ownership to space to enforce their rules there.

Re:More stupid crap from Trump

[Bodhammer]

It's because NOAA loves Trump so much and trying suck up to him because they support his AGW policies.... oh wait.... nevermind...