Slashdot Mirror
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."
"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."
"cant show photo of globe earth because of copyright license law"
earth is flat, everybody knows it by now
lol
Clearly this is part of the coverup designed to convince us that the world is not flat. Nice try.
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?
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.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
The License itself is free. In this situation, NOAA is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The legislation as written started that all imaging done From orbit by private operators must be licenced. It doesn't make any exceptions for low resolution cameras, or engineering cameras that are only temporarily in orbit. The NOAA office simply can not issue a waiver to SpaceX as there is no provision in the relevant law that would permit them to do so.
The only real solution would be for congress to pass new legislation to allow exemptions and so forth, set minimum resolution threshold or whatever. But given how disfunctional congress is these days, I don't think we'll see it for a while.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Earth is fake.
Space is flat.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
International law requires countries to regulate the outer space activities of private companies. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Article VI:
Article VIII:
I don't think the treaty says anything specifically about regulating communications, but it certainly establishes the principle that you don't escape national jurisdiction by leaving the planet.
51 U.S. Code Subchapter III - LICENSING OF PRIVATE REMOTE SENSING SPACE SYSTEMS
960.12 Data policy for remote sensing space systems.
It does not look like the provisions are onerous, but it may take some time to make the required determinations. It should be possible to request a license for the entire program, as long as a review takes place prior to any changes that modify image quality. However this is not the same as actually reading the issued license - if there is one.
960.12 Data policy for remote sensing space systems.
(a) In accordance with the Act, if the U.S. Government has or will directly fund all or a substantial part of the development, fabrication, launch, or operation costs of a licensed system, the license shall require that all of the unenhanced data from the system be made available on a nondiscriminatory basis except on the basis of national security, foreign policy or international obligations.
(b) If the U.S. Government has not funded and will not fund, either directly or indirectly, any of the development, fabrication, launch, or operations costs of a licensed system, the licensee may provide access to its unenhanced data in accordance with reasonable commercial terms and conditions, subject to the requirement of providing data to the government of any sensed state, pursuant to 960.11(b)(10).
(c) If the U.S. Government has (either directly or indirectly) funded some of the development, fabrication, launch, or operations costs of a licensed system, the Assistant Administrator, in consultation with other appropriate U.S. agencies, shall, subject to national security concerns, determine whether the interest of the United States in promoting widespread availability of remote sensing data on reasonable cost terms and conditions requires that some or all of the unenhanced data from the system be made available on a nondiscriminatory basis in accordance with the Act. The license shall specify any data subject to this requirement. In making this determination, the Assistant Administrator may consider:
(1) The extent and proportion of private and Federal funding of the system;
(2) The extent of the governmental versus the commercial market for the unenhanced data;
(3) The effect of a nondiscriminatory data access designation on the applicant’s commercial activity; (4) The extent to which the applicant’s proposed commercial data policies would encourage foreign operators to limit access, particularly for research and public benefit purposes; or (5) The extent to which the U.S. interest in promoting widespread data availability can be satisfied through license conditions that ensure access to the data for non-commercial scientific, educational, or other public benefit purposes.