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

US based requirement, what about other countries?

[wowwashington]

Does the US Gov't just want SpaceX to move out of country and then broadcast?

Re:Security rules

[Xylantiel]

I'm a little suspicious of the claim that this is being "interpreted in a new way", and it generally sounds like the reporter is more interested in manufacturing controversy for a catchy story than actually figuring out what is going on. The NOAA release says that SpaceX has a license already, so that's not "new". I'm wondering if, in a previous launch, they violated some "conditions" that nobody on either side wants to talk about specifically. Another option would be that there was something special about this launch that fell on the wrong side of the "conditions" of SpaceX's license. But the reporter apparently couldn't be bothered to actually report the story, they just made up something vague and inflammatory that isn't even consistent with their own primary sources.

Re:Security rules

[thomst]

https://slashdot.org/~Xylantiel confessed:

I'm a little suspicious of the claim that this is being "interpreted in a new way", and it generally sounds like the reporter is more interested in manufacturing controversy for a catchy story than actually figuring out what is going on. The NOAA release says that SpaceX has a license already, so that's not "new". I'm wondering if, in a previous launch, they violated some "conditions" that nobody on either side wants to talk about specifically. Another option would be that there was something special about this launch that fell on the wrong side of the "conditions" of SpaceX's license. But the reporter apparently couldn't be bothered to actually report the story, they just made up something vague and inflammatory that isn't even consistent with their own primary sources.

Brzzt.

The NOAA statement you link to is virtually content-free. That's a fact.

The only thing that seems to have changed is the addition of payload cameras for the Falcon Heavy test launch to showcase Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster and its spacesuited dummy driver, with the Earth as its background. That video has gone pandemic, and, in the process, has immensely boosted both SpaceX's and Elon Musk's own credibility and reputation around the globe, without in any way endangering the USA's national security.

Were I conspiracy-inclined, I'd point to the fact that Musk's resignation from Trump's Economic Advisory Council started a stampede for the exits by other members of that body that resulted in it being disbanded - after having met a grand total of one time - and that sequence of events put a major dent in POTUS 45's claim to have "all the best people" advising him.

Then I'd note that among Donald Trump's signal personality traits is holding very public grudges (and prosecuting them in ludicrously petty ways) over insignificant perceived slights. I'd probably also mention that NOAA, counter-intuitively, is an agency of the Commerce Department - and that Wilbur Ross, the current Secretary of that department, has demonstrated himself to be among the very most shameless presidential sycophants in a Cabinet stuffed to bursting with unabashed toadies and lickspittles.

But I'm not much into conspiracy-mongering, so I'll just add my voice to those who have characterized this bit of bureaucratic thuggery as standard-issue government overreach, tip my hat to the Streisand Effect, and say, "Let's see what happens next time, shall we ... ?"