NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
SpaceX Vehicles and Missions => SpaceX Falcon Missions Section => Topic started by: gongora on 01/09/2018 03:08 am
-
DISCUSSION THREAD for Flight 5 of the Iridium NEXT missions.
Flight 5 successfully launched March 30, 2018 at 0714 PDT (14:14 UTC) on a reused Falcon 9 (1041.2) from SLC-4 at Vandenberg. The first stage was expended.
Flight 5 will send all of its satellites into plane 1.
NSF Threads for Iridium NEXT Flight 5: Discussion (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44634.0) / Updates (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44734.0) / L2 Coverage / ASDS (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=66.0) / Party (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40089.msg1520968#msg1520968)
NSF Articles for Iridium NEXT Flight 5:
[Jan. 22, 2018] Iridium-5 to launch in March; government shutdown creates manifest uncertainty (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/spacex-iridium-5-launch-shutdown-manifest-uncertainty/)
See the Flight 1 Discussion Thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35112.0) for more information and links to other Iridium Next threads and articles.
General information for Iridium flights 1-5 & 7-8
Payload Mass: 8600kg for 10 satellites + 1000kg for dispenser = 9600kg
Launch orbit: 625km, 86.66 degrees
Operational orbit: 778km, 86.4 degrees
81 Satellites will be built for Iridium NEXT, with 66 being needed for a fully operational constellation. All of the satellites will carry ADS-B aviation tracking hosted payloads (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35112.msg1632414#msg1632414) for Aireon, and 60 of the satellites will carry AIS maritime tracking hosted payloads (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35112.msg1631005#msg1631005) for exactEarth.
Other SpaceX resources on NASASpaceflight:
SpaceX News Articles (Recent) (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/spacex/) / SpaceX News Articles from 2006 (Including numerous exclusive Elon interviews) (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21862.0)
SpaceX Dragon Articles (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/dragon/) / SpaceX Missions Section (with Launch Manifest and info on past and future missions) (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=55.0)
L2 SpaceX Section (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=60.0)
-
Re-used core again... so will they attempt to land this time- either on the drone ship or RTLS?
-
Re-used core again... so will they attempt to land this time- either on the drone ship or RTLS?
We have no idea yet.
-
Re-used core again... so will they attempt to land this time- either on the drone ship or RTLS?
None of the Iridium launches will likely RTLS, even with Block 5 boosters which may be capable they aren't currently planning to do so. Don't know about ASDS recovery plans.
-
Re-used core again... so will they attempt to land this time- either on the drone ship or RTLS?
None of the Iridium launches will likely RTLS, even with Block 5 boosters which may be capable they aren't currently planning to do so. Don't know about ASDS recovery plans.
They had originally planned to RTLS for the 4th launch before switching from Block 4 to reuse Block 3. I see no reason that the next Iridium flight to use a new core wouldn’t RTLS.
-
Re-used core again... so will they attempt to land this time- either on the drone ship or RTLS?
None of the Iridium launches will likely RTLS, even with Block 5 boosters which may be capable they aren't currently planning to do so. Don't know about ASDS recovery plans.
They had originally planned to RTLS for the 4th launch before switching from Block 4 to reuse Block 3. I see no reason that the next Iridium flight to use a new core wouldn’t RTLS.
1. Their FAA launch license for Iridium launches hasn't been revised to allow for it yet. It only allows expended or ASDS recovery missions. This isn't definitive as such revisions can happen "last minute" and the FAA sucks at updating their online licenses. So, at best suggestive that they hadn't finalized the necessary paperwork to allow it for Iridium 4 irrespective of the core swap.
2. More to the point however, here's their VAFB launch schedule as of mid October. Dates are off but IMO the operations plan is still relevant.
-
2. More to the point however, here's their VAFB launch schedule as of mid October. Dates are off but IMO the operations plan is still relevant.
Is that some kind of official USAF list?
-
It's an official SpaceX one from their filing for permission for RTLS to VAFB.
-
It's an official SpaceX one from their filing for permission for RTLS to VAFB.
Was that documentation posted somewhere, or do you have a link?
-
What is an "Iridium Landing Area" and why is it unique to Iridium?
-
It's an official SpaceX one from their filing for permission for RTLS to VAFB.
Was that documentation posted somewhere, or do you have a link?
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research/spacex_2017iha_app.pdf (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research/spacex_2017iha_app.pdf)
[copy also attached]
-
Shortest gaps between Vandenberg launches has been about 6 weeks for SpaceX
Paz Feb 10
Iridium 5 ???
Iridium 6/Grace April 14
Odd to have April 14th date but not date for earlier flight?
Gap is 9 weeks. So presumably they think they can get gaps down to 4.5 weeks?
Needs to be mid March at latest?
-
What is an "Iridium Landing Area" and why is it unique to Iridium?
It's just a name of an area, no reason to think that it is unique to Iridium flights.
-
What is an "Iridium Landing Area" and why is it unique to Iridium?
It's just a name of an area, no reason to think that it is unique to Iridium flights.
Different inclination (and energy?) missions will have different areas where we would expect the ASDS to be. There might be overlaps between such different areas, but I'd expect the landing area for Iridium to differ from that of some other classes of missions. So the label does have some possible uniqueness and explicatory power.
-
Mar 18 per
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=82273&RequestTimeout=1000
-
What is an "Iridium Landing Area" and why is it unique to Iridium?
It's just a name of an area, no reason to think that it is unique to Iridium flights.
Other non-RTLS recoveries out of VAFB are currently planned to land on ASDSs in a different area (~50+ km WSW of VAFB). In that respect, based on current plans it is unique to Iridium. The reason for this has not been explained in any documents/filings that I've seen.
-
What is an "Iridium Landing Area" and why is it unique to Iridium?
It's just a name of an area, no reason to think that it is unique to Iridium flights.
Other non-RTLS recoveries out of VAFB are currently planned to land on ASDSs in a different area (~50+ km WSW of VAFB). In that respect, based on current plans it is unique to Iridium. The reason for this has not been explained in any documents/filings that I've seen.
Why wouldn't it just be due to orbital inclination, energy, etc. ?
-
That sounds like one per month or so from mid-March to mid-summer.
-
That sounds like one per month or so from mid-March to mid-summer.
An article in Space News (http://spacenews.com/spacex-iridium-set-march-18-launch-date-for-fifth-iridium-next-mission/) says they want to average about every 5 weeks. That would probably be late April, early June, mid-July. Of course if you look at the history of Iridium launch dates, I really wouldn't bet on this schedule holding.
-
That sounds like one per month or so from mid-March to mid-summer.
An article in Space News (http://spacenews.com/spacex-iridium-set-march-18-launch-date-for-fifth-iridium-next-mission/) says they want to average about every 5 weeks. That would probably be late April, early June, mid-July. Of course if you look at the history of Iridium launch dates, I really wouldn't bet on this schedule holding.
Do they have all sats for these flights ready and waiting?
-
Any word on time of day for this launch? Trying to figure out if this would be a morning launch, like Paz, so I can tie it into a business trip to SFO. ;)
Past Schedules:
Flight 1 9:54am
Flight 2 1:25pm
Flight 3 5:37am
Flight 4 5:27pm
-
Iridium-NEXT F5 will lift off at 15:19 UTC (8:19 AM Pacific Time).
At that time, it'll be an hour and nine minutes after sunrise.
-
Iridium 4th Quarter Conference Call confirmed March 29 is the date they're looking at, still needs to be finalized. Also had comments on rest of deployments:
"Following next month’s launch, our cadence with SpaceX should move more rapidly as launch frequency is planned to increase to approximately one launch every five to six weeks or so. In fact, our sixth launch is currently scheduled for a quick turnaround at the end of April, that will be a rideshare with the JPL German Grace satellites in which we’ll utilize half of the payload to launch five Iridium NEXT satellites alongside the two Grace satellites which will be mounted on the dispenser above ours."
-
Tweets:
Tagnan (https://twitter.com/mrtagnan/status/967536158245883904):
@IridiumBoss approximately what time will Iridium 5 launch at? Close to sunset/sunrise or no?
Matt Desch (https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/967537172780810241):
7:20am pst. That’s about 25 minutes after sunrise. Hard to terrorize Southern California that way, but we’ll do our best...
Dark Energy (https://twitter.com/Alejandro_DebH/status/967582506664022016):
It is PST or PDT? I think you change the clocks on the 11th there in America, right?
Matt Desch (https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/967583418224730112):
How ‘bout we do it this way?: 14:19:49 UTC
That is 7:20am PDT
-
More Tweets:
Gunter Krebs (https://twitter.com/Skyrocket71/status/967019196608581632):
@IridiumBoss Can you tell me already the satellite numbers of the upcoming fifth mission?
Matt Desch (https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/967201766537392129):
Sure. Planned at this time: SV140, SV142, SV143, SV144, SV145, SV146, SV148, SV149, SV150, SV157.
---
Alessandro Lovesio (https://twitter.com/AleLovesio/status/967058536135118849):
Is Plane 4 basically done or some work/swaps/deorbits is still needed there?
Matt Desch (https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/967198580535713793):
10 of 11 slots are filled with NEXT satellites so almost complete. SV128 is drifting to plane 4 from plane 3 to replace the remaining Block 1 sat (SV35).
-
In the recent Iridium 4th Quarter Earnings Teleconference Transcript (http://investor.iridium.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=ABEA-3ERWFI&fileid=972360&filekey=DB1F9999-88E1-4FC8-8C61-D199FC4CB4DB&filename=IRDM-USQ_Transcript_2018-02-22.pdf) Matt Desch said the launch vehicle was already at Vandenberg (it may have just arrived at the time based on other reports):
" Right now, it looks like our NEXT launch will be the morning of Thursday, March 29, essentially 5 weeks from now, though we're still confirming that date. The 10 satellites for that launch are shipping to Vandenberg now and the first and second Falcon 9 stages are already onsite and being processed at the base. This launch again will use a flight-proven first stage. It will be the 10th flight of a refurbished rocked by SpaceX. We have history with this particular first stage. It successfully launched our third batch of satellites in October.
-
Tenth reused booster is pretty amazing if you think about it. This flight will mark exactly one year of using flight-proven boosters (first flight was 3/30/2017) -- they will have launched 21 times, using 23 boosters... and almost half of them were reused.
The economic viability argument... dead and buried.
-
The economic viability argument... dead and buried.
Not really, so far they proved "only" that it is not more costly than using new boosters. :P
-
The economic viability argument... dead and buried.
Not really, so far they proved "only" that it is not more costly than using new boosters. :P
Well I've understood there have been reuse discounts which would point to being cheaper, but I guess as long as we don't have hard numbers it's hard to say ;)
-
I'll likely be in Arizona when this launches, what are the chances I'll be able to see the launch from there or not? If not how close should I be in able to see it launch? Thanks in advance!
-
As it’s after sunrise I doubt you’d see it, at least from a place like Phoenix or Tucson. If it were a night launch maybe but you’d have to know precisely where to look and it would be nothing like what the people saw in LA recently.
-
The economic viability argument... dead and buried.
Not really, so far they proved "only" that it is not more costly than using new boosters. :P
Never underestimate the ability of naysayers to move goalposts.
-
I suspect we all have our own internal lists of who are the naysayers, who are the concern trolls, who are the cheerleaders for various factions, and who are the balanced analysts, etc... Please keep those lists internal, though, thanks.
-
Tweet from Matt Desch (https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/970761177922981888):
Iridium network update: our first 2 drifters from Launch 1 (105 & 108) were activated today, bringing the total to 34 Iridium NEXT sats now in operation (over 50% of 66 in constellation!). 3 more drifters also planned to be in service before next launch on March 29. Onward!
-
The economic viability argument... dead and buried.
Not really, so far they proved "only" that it is not more costly than using new boosters. :P
Never underestimate the ability of naysayers to move goalposts.
Few years ago I heard so much about how much prices will drop once SpaceX starts regularly recover and reuse stages. Are you denying that they so far didn't dropped prices significantly (or in fact at all at moment of typing these words - still 62 mln $)?
Nowadays SpaceX fans explain that they don't have to do it right now since they are already cheapest, they have to recoup investment, finance BFR/BFS and similar excuses. Textbook goalpost moving.
-
The economic viability argument... dead and buried.
Not really, so far they proved "only" that it is not more costly than using new boosters. :P
Never underestimate the ability of naysayers to move goalposts.
Few years ago I heard so much about how much prices will drop once SpaceX starts regularly recover and reuse stages. Are you denying that they so far didn't dropped prices significantly (or in fact at all at moment of typing these words - still 62 mln $)?
Nowadays SpaceX fans explain that they don't have to do it right now since they are already cheapest, they have to recoup investment, finance BFR/BFS and similar excuses. Textbook goalpost moving.
There's probably a better thread for you to conflate price and cost.
-
There's probably a better thread for you to conflate price and cost.
I can think of several. Use them. Further posts will be deleted.
-
Retweeted by Iridium:
Les dix satellites de la cinquième grappe d’#IridiumNEXT sont arrivés à Vandenberg. Lancement prévu à la fin du mois sur un #Falcon9 de @SpaceX. @IridiumComm @Thales_Alenia_S
https://twitter.com/StefanBarensky/status/973177015791706113
Microsoft Translation:
The ten satellites of the fifth cluster @IridiumNEXT have arrived at Vandenberg. Scheduled launch at the end of the month on a @Falcon9 de #SpaceX. #IridiumComm @Thales_Alenia_S
that's not an Iridium NEXT satellite
-
that's not an Iridium NEXT satellite
The black cylinder looks like an Iridium dispenser though...
-
that's not an Iridium NEXT satellite
The black cylinder looks like an Iridium dispenser though...
It's a set of Iridium satellites already on the dispenser, and a very terrible picture.
-
that's not an Iridium NEXT satellite
The black cylinder looks like an Iridium dispenser though...
It's a set of Iridium satellites already on the dispenser, and a very terrible picture.
You're right... the perspective throws everything off, making the closer sats look huge compared to the dispenser in the background.
-
It's a set of Iridium satellites already on the dispenser, and a very terrible picture.
Yes, the satellite is in the foreground but angle almost makes it look like it's further back and huge!
Matches satellites in (library?) image attached that Iridium has just tweeted.
Edit: ninja'd!
-
With this being the first re flight of a B4, and both missions being LEO, it surely must be a candidate for becoming the first core to fly three times? Or is B5 going to a big enough improvement, and coming soon enough, that that's unnecessary?
(Ok I know nobody can answer these questions, just wanted to judge people's opinions on it)
-
With this being the first re flight of a B4, and both missions being LEO, it surely must be a candidate for becoming the first core to fly three times? Or is B5 going to a big enough improvement, and coming soon enough, that that's unnecessary?
(Ok I know nobody can answer these questions, just wanted to judge people's opinions on it)
As far as I understand it, they currently do not expect to refly non-block-5 cores more then once.
But if they cannot get back up to speed in producing the coming block 5 cores soon, they might be forced to reconsider this approach...
That might be enough incentive to do fly a block 4 a third time...
For now that seems plan-B at best...
-
We should be creeping up on a Static Fire, any word on that schedule?
Edit: Any word on fairing recovery attempt on this mission? If so has the parafoil been resized since last month?
-
Pretty quiet for a launch in 5 days.
-
Pretty quiet for a launch in 5 days.
Pretty normal for a Vandenberg launch. We usually don't hear about the static fire until it is over.
-
Claimed Iridium, not SpaceX, patch:
https://twitter.com/ticklestuffyo/status/975943975386324992?s=21
Is the patch from Iridium. Posted on their twitter.
https://twitter.com/IridiumComm/status/976458898461876224?s=20
Hidden meaning, huh?
Surely it’s more hidden than the 5 white stars of the 8 making the Big Dipper represents launch 5 of 8 for Iridium NEXT.
Any other speculation of hidden meaning(s)?
Edit: 5 of 8
-
Seven stars in the (actual) Big Dipper.
Orange is the new green? (clover)
Red horseshoe.
-
Claimed Iridium, not SpaceX, patch:
https://twitter.com/ticklestuffyo/status/975943975386324992?s=21
Is the patch from Iridium. Posted on their twitter.
https://twitter.com/IridiumComm/status/976458898461876224?s=20
Hidden meaning, huh?
Surely it’s more hidden than the 5 white stars of the 8 making the Big Dipper represents launch 5 of 8 for Iridium NEXT.
Any other speculation of hidden meaning(s)?
Edit: 5 of 8
I guess this is a phoenix rising from the fire of the rocket launch. Does this mean that they consider Iridium NEXT as now fully "live"?
The black bands on the Falcon 9 along the frame look a bit block-5-ish, although the representation is not close to accurate.
Interesting that the arctic ice pack is shown like it's land (that's the Bering Strait under the V).
I'll start a rumour that the crest of the bird is Matt Desch's signature :)
-
Claimed Iridium, not SpaceX, patch:
https://twitter.com/ticklestuffyo/status/975943975386324992?s=21
Is the patch from Iridium. Posted on their twitter.
https://twitter.com/IridiumComm/status/976458898461876224?s=20
Hidden meaning, huh?
Surely it’s more hidden than the 5 white stars of the 8 making the Big Dipper represents launch 5 of 8 for Iridium NEXT.
Any other speculation of hidden meaning(s)?
Edit: 5 of 8
I guess this is a phoenix rising from the fire of the rocket launch. Does this mean that they consider Iridium NEXT as now fully "live"?
The black bands on the Falcon 9 along the frame look a bit block-5-ish, although the representation is not close to accurate.
Interesting that the arctic ice pack is shown like it's land (that's the Bering Strait under the V).
I'll start a rumour that the crest of the bird is Matt Desch's signature :)
I took those as gray bands of soot for re-used booster.
-
Mr Steven has been out for a little excursion today, now heading back to port.
Some last minute testing/practising before getting ready for the Iridium launch?
-
PACIFIC OCEAN.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS 291327Z TO 291502Z MAR,
ALTERNATE 1327Z TO 1502Z DAILY 30 MAR THRU 02 APR
IN AREA BOUND BY:
28-04N 119-51W, 28-05N 121-19W,
31-00N 121-19W, 30-59N 119-52W.
2. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS 291548Z TO 291639Z MAR,
ALTERNATE 1548Z TO 1639Z DAILY 30 MAR THRU 02 APR
IN AREA BOUND BY
27-59S 147-19W, 27-54S 144-30W,
28-37S 142-08W, 72-32S 131-35W,
73-05S 146-38W.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 021739Z APR 18.//
Authority: WESTERN RANGE 131208Z MAR 18.
Date: 250333Z MAR 18
Cancel: 02173900 Apr 18
-
From the looks of Area1.jpg, the SpaceX bullseye should indicate that there will be another fairing recovery attempt.
-
Tweet from Matt Desch (https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/978455936590282753):
This is one of the better articles lately by @allen_bernard1 on our growing success with satellite IoT. The SpaceX webcast "package" that explains the satellite customer during Thursday's L-5 webcast will focus on IoT to better explain the opportunity.
[IoT Agenda] Iridium Next satellites to bring broadband IoT to every corner of the globe (http://internetofthingsagenda.techtarget.com/feature/Iridium-Next-satellites-to-bring-broadband-IoT-to-every-corner-of-the-globe)
With the only exception that the editor put a non-Iridium NEXT satellite in the banner for the article... Oh well, the article is good.
-
Pretty quiet for a launch in 5 days.
Sorry, Vandenberg launches are not categorized as "spectator sport".
-
So Iridium CEO's Twitter account just had a statement that launch is slipping to NET 3/31 or into next week due to issue with 1 of the 10 sats. Tweets has since been deleted. Posting here so everyone has the heads up.
CONFIRMED:
@IridiumBoss
We are having an issue with 1 of the 10 satellites in prep for #Iridium5. Our supplier and launch team is resetting for NET 3/31, with potential to shift into next week, if not resolved quickly. Launch success is priority #1! Will provide more info as available
Let's preempt some questions:
1. Odds of this effecting CRS-14 = Almost no chance
2. Station will take priority for Visiting Vehicle schedule
3. 2 days btw 2 launches is totally doable.
Could they launch back to back or even the same day? If the same day they would be ~8 hours apart due to launch windows.
-
So Iridium CEO's Twitter account just had a statement that launch is slipping to NET 3/31 or into next week due to issue with 1 of the 10 sats. Tweets has since been deleted. Posting here so everyone has the heads up.
CONFIRMED:
@IridiumBoss
We are having an issue with 1 of the 10 satellites in prep for #Iridium5. Our supplier and launch team is resetting for NET 3/31, with potential to shift into next week, if not resolved quickly. Launch success is priority #1! Will provide more info as available
Let's preempt some questions:
1. Odds of this effecting CRS-14 = Almost no chance
2. Station will take priority for Visiting Vehicle schedule
3. 2 days btw 2 launches is totally doable.
Could they launch back to back or even the same day? If the same day they would be ~8 hours apart due to launch windows.
They've said ~48hrs-ish is the minimum turnaround time right now.
-
So Iridium CEO's Twitter account just had a statement that launch is slipping to NET 3/31 or into next week due to issue with 1 of the 10 sats. Tweets has since been deleted. Posting here so everyone has the heads up.
CONFIRMED:
@IridiumBoss
We are having an issue with 1 of the 10 satellites in prep for #Iridium5. Our supplier and launch team is resetting for NET 3/31, with potential to shift into next week, if not resolved quickly. Launch success is priority #1! Will provide more info as available
Let's preempt some questions:
1. Odds of this effecting CRS-14 = Almost no chance
2. Station will take priority for Visiting Vehicle schedule
3. 2 days btw 2 launches is totally doable.
Could they launch back to back or even the same day? If the same day they would be ~8 hours apart due to launch windows.
I would think with two launch teams & two different coasts they should be able to launch back to back and on same day. NASA gets priority but my as well show boat to customer launch in timely manner and clear out the launch back log. But who knows but SpaceX.
-
So Iridium CEO's Twitter account just had a statement that launch is slipping to NET 3/31 or into next week due to issue with 1 of the 10 sats. Tweets has since been deleted. Posting here so everyone has the heads up.
CONFIRMED:
@IridiumBoss
We are having an issue with 1 of the 10 satellites in prep for #Iridium5. Our supplier and launch team is resetting for NET 3/31, with potential to shift into next week, if not resolved quickly. Launch success is priority #1! Will provide more info as available
Let's preempt some questions:
1. Odds of this effecting CRS-14 = Almost no chance
2. Station will take priority for Visiting Vehicle schedule
3. 2 days btw 2 launches is totally doable.
Could they launch back to back or even the same day? If the same day they would be ~8 hours apart due to launch windows.
I would think with two launch teams & two different coasts they should be able to launch back to back and on same day. NASA gets priority but my as well show boat to customer launch in timely manner and clear out the launch back log. But who knows but SpaceX.
Except they've said before that's not possible right now. West coast launches still receive the same support from Hawthorne as east coast launches. There are two different launch prep teams, but significant overlap in the team at Hawthorne.
-
Swap it out with one of the IR-6 Launch satellites? keep on target....
-
Swap it out with one of the IR-6 Launch satellites? keep on target....
They do have a few ground spare NEXT sats IIRC, but transporting one to Vandy from Arizona, fueling and processing it would take a good bit of time. Might be able to fit within 4 days, since it is only one sat.
However, the issue could be repairable at Vandy, we don't know.
-
Ground test harness problem.
https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/978795278118653952?s=19
Matt Desch @IridiumBoss
Positive update to our satellite and launch delay. Just been apprised there has been a technical resolution; satellites and F9 are in great shape and ready to go! Was ground harness test cable issue - now fixed. Launch now pulled back to Friday, 3/30 at 7:14am pdt! #GoTeam!
8:45 PM - Mar 27, 2018
-
According to the patch within the newly-released press kit, Core B1041 is bound to have landing legs AND grid fins installed.
-
NRC Quest is already on the way probably to track B1041.2 water landing.
-
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:3439091/mmsi:338358000/imo:9744465/vessel:MR_STEVEN
According to MarineTraffic, Mr. Steven is now going to "YOUR MOMSHOUSE".... ???
It was previously going to "Iridium 5"
It's still underway, ETA is 3:30 UTC March 30.
-
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:3439091/mmsi:338358000/imo:9744465/vessel:MR_STEVEN
According to MarineTraffic, Mr. Steven is now going to "YOUR MOMSHOUSE".... ???
It was previously going to "Iridium 5"
It's still underway, ETA is 3:30 UTC March 30.
Heh they have to know we are watching MarineTraffic.
-
Change of plans. Mr. Steven is now heading to Your Mom's House. You might want to let her know. :P
-
That's a sooty-lookin' booster. Anyone know how many times it's flown before and what Block it might be?
-
That's a sooty-lookin' booster. Anyone know how many times it's flown before and what Block it might be?
It's a Block 4 booster, which flew only once before last October, helping loft ten other Iridium-NEXT sats to orbit.
-
Tweet from Iridium Corporate (https://twitter.com/IridiumComm/status/979026027690242050):
A few weeks ago, @Iridiumboss made a special visit to our old friend from #Iridium3, in the midst of preparations for #Iridium5. In the soot of the #Iridium3 booster the most eloquent, compelling and Shakespeare-esque message was written, destined for space... #IridiumRocks!!
-
Hope this is the correct place to ask.
Why do they mount the legs and grid fins onto the rocket if they plan on expending it? Are they the older Grid fins then and not the Titanium?
-
Hello Don S
> Why do they mount the legs and grid fins onto the rocket if they plan on expending it?
They may want to continue testing landing burn options, or simply collect more data on the "current standard configuration", which almost invariably includes landing legs and grid fins (added entry points all add up to reliability and landing history, even if the booster is not recovered).
> Are they the older Grid fins then and not the Titanium?
Older grid fins are the current standard too. titanium should be part of the next "standard" configuration (Block V).
-
The pictures of the Iridium 5 fairing don't look like the PAZ fairing (focusing on the details towards the bottom of the fairing). I wonder if this is the older style or if maybe the PAZ fairing was just finished a little differently on the outside.
-
Spacey music on the webcast
-
Why would NOAA block webcasts? That is a total new one for me...
-
Hmmm, so NOAA restrictions mean this will be a short webcast and ending before S/C Sep.
This is odd. Even if the flight path went over something confidential the resolution is too low to see anything on the ground.
-
Why would NOAA block webcasts? That is a total new one for me...
Does SpaceX use a NOAA plane to relay downrange video transmission? I can't think of anything else that NOAA would have in relation to this launch....
-
Why would NOAA block webcasts? That is a total new one for me...
What does NOAA have *at all* to do with this launch? Maybe I missed some kind of NOAA ride-along payload or?
I was hoping for fairing recovery efforts coverage....
Don
-
Why would NOAA block webcasts? That is a total new one for me...
What does NOAA have *at all* to do with this launch? Maybe I missed some kind of NOAA ride-along payload or?
I was hoping for fairing recovery efforts coverage....
Don
NOAA licenses all image taking from orbit.
-
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html
It is unlawful for any person who is subject to the jurisdiction or control of the United States, directly or through any subsidiary or affiliate to operate a private remote sensing space system without possession of a valid license issued under the Act and the regulations.
Odd that it just became a problem, they've been showing satellite separations on orbit for years now.
-
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html
It is unlawful for any person who is subject to the jurisdiction or control of the United States, directly or through any subsidiary or affiliate to operate a private remote sensing space system without possession of a valid license issued under the Act and the regulations.
Odd that it just became a problem, they've been showing satellite separations on orbit for years now.
Maybe a consequence of starman?
-
VERY nice view of the first stage from the second stage!!
-
A one-engine boostback burn?
-
What was that about NOAA? They are proceeding with webcast normally so far...
-
Why would NOAA request an end of live coverage?
-
FYI:
Eric Berger
@SciGuySpace
Initial response from NOAA to a query about their restrictions on viewing this launch: "Huh?"
William Harwood
@cbs_spacenews
F9/Iridium5: NOAA public affairs officer says he's not aware of any NOAA restriction on Falcon 9 rocketcam video
-
Maybe someone didn't get the license paperwork filed in time for this flight? That would impose a restriction, if they didn't have the license, I suppose.
-
Why would NOAA request an end of live coverage?
I am sure the NSF journalist will get us a answer on why we are having NOAA restrictions now on live video coverage of launches after years of having live video coverage.
-
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html
It is unlawful for any person who is subject to the jurisdiction or control of the United States, directly or through any subsidiary or affiliate to operate a private remote sensing space system without possession of a valid license issued under the Act and the regulations.
Odd that it just became a problem, they've been showing satellite separations on orbit for years now.
That's rediculous. This is launch telemetry, not remote sensing. Launch telemetry is licensed by the FAA, not by NOAA.
-
Why would NOAA request an end of live coverage?
I am sure the NSF journalist will get us a answer on why we are having NOAA restrictions now on live video coverage of launches after years of having live video coverage.
Or these alleged restrictions always existed but this time SpaceX didn't managed to fill paperwork in time for whatever reason...
-
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html
It is unlawful for any person who is subject to the jurisdiction or control of the United States, directly or through any subsidiary or affiliate to operate a private remote sensing space system without possession of a valid license issued under the Act and the regulations.
Odd that it just became a problem, they've been showing satellite separations on orbit for years now.
That's rediculous. This is launch telemetry, not remote sensing. Launch telemetry is licensed by the FAA, not by NOAA.
Well even the NOAA PAO seems to agree with you:
Eric Berger
@SciGuySpace
More from NOAA spox RE today's @SpaceX launch:
"I can only think it's an error. I would double check with them. Happy to follow up here if there is a NOAA connection."
-
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html
It is unlawful for any person who is subject to the jurisdiction or control of the United States, directly or through any subsidiary or affiliate to operate a private remote sensing space system without possession of a valid license issued under the Act and the regulations.
Odd that it just became a problem, they've been showing satellite separations on orbit for years now.
That's rediculous. This is launch telemetry, not remote sensing. Launch telemetry is licensed by the FAA, not by NOAA.
Possibly relevant that they has to cut the broadcast just 1 second before seco.
I.E. "launch" is ended, vehicle is now "in orbit"
I think I smell a bureaucrat throwing his weight around.
If this was any other country, I would expect that someone had not been paid his routine bribe...
-
I think the issue is the rocket cam once in orbit is effective remote sensing, I guess SpaceX and others haven't realised this.
-
Hard to see the launch this morning from my front yard in Santa Clarita just north of Low Angeles. Just a tiny white dot with a minimal trail. Not the big clear contrails of the previous launch.
Couldn't see the second stage at all.
Edit: From other posts there was a con trail. It was just not visible to me as it was under my local horizon.
-
I smell a SpookSat secondary payload....
-
Why would NOAA have any jurisdiction of any kind over a private spacecraft - in space - over international airspace? Over American airspace I might concede the point, but international airspace? That's just wrong!
-
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html
It is unlawful for any person who is subject to the jurisdiction or control of the United States, directly or through any subsidiary or affiliate to operate a private remote sensing space system without possession of a valid license issued under the Act and the regulations.
Odd that it just became a problem, they've been showing satellite separations on orbit for years now.
That's rediculous. This is launch telemetry, not remote sensing. Launch telemetry is licensed by the FAA, not by NOAA.
Possibly relevant that they has to cut the broadcast just 1 second before seco.
I.E. "launch" is ended, vehicle is now "in orbit"
I think I smell a bureaucrat throwing his weight around.
If this was any other country, I would expect that someone had not been paid his routine bribe...
Telemetry is licensed by the FAA through the duration of the mission, not just until the vehicle hits orbit.
-
I smell a SpookSat secondary payload....
More likely, some oversight/regulation changes being implemented due to those troublesome Bees.
-
Was that Matt Desch doing the countdown?
-
I smell a SpookSat secondary payload....
More likely, some oversight/regulation changes being implemented due to those troublesome Bees.
What I was thinking. A bad apple spoils it for everyone.
Edit: The Swarm people crossed the FCC though, not NOAA.
-
Legal jurisdiction of any federal agency of the United States ends outside of United States territory or airspace. IMO something else is up with this flight.
-
The NOAA confusion will no doubt be used to suggest that SpaceX aren't a serious/professional organization, it is a bit concerning that this never came up before and the NOAA PAO doesn't have a ready answer, suggesting it's not necessarily a real restriction...
-
They didn't want the ZUMA fly-by to be on camera 8)
-
I think I smell a bureaucrat throwing his weight around.
If this was any other country, I would expect that someone had not been paid his routine bribe...
My first thought was that some mid-level bureaucrat had just experienced a bad breakup.
But more likely that SpaceX had failed to get some required paperwork filed in time.
-
Legal jurisdiction of any federal agency of the United States ends outside of United States territory or airspace. IMO something else is up with this flight.
The video stream is operated out of California, where the US government certainly has jurisdiction.
I've never heard of NOAA restricting anything, though. Maybe it's a RF conflict with a NOAA satellite that happens to be in jsut the wrong place, but that would be odd.
-
NOAA aside...
That sure sounded like Matt Desch counted down the last 30 seconds before launch.
-
Legal jurisdiction of any federal agency of the United States ends outside of United States territory or airspace. IMO something else is up with this flight.
This isn't true. All space related activities are still covered.
-
They didn't want the ZUMA fly-by to be on camera 8)
As the relative velocity would be around 12 km/s, I'm sure nobody was worried about that. This isn't high-def ultra high speed video.
-
"Legal jurisdiction of any federal agency of the United States ends outside of United States territory or airspace."
I think you will find that is not correct. Jurisdiction extends to US citizens, and companies, wherever they may be.
-
Whatever the reason for the video blackout, I can already hear the conspiracy theorists coming out of woodworks. The threories thay come up with might make some fun youtube watching when I'm bored.
-
Legal jurisdiction of any federal agency of the United States ends outside of United States territory or airspace. IMO something else is up with this flight.
Not true in the case of satellites, etc. launched into space. US has jurisdiction over satellites launched from US territory or satellites owned by US corporations. Same is true of Russian satellites launched from another country, etc.
Which is why Swarm is getting hammered by the FAA although they launched from India.
-
Whatever that screwup is, I am happy it was in bureaucratic paperworkology and not in rocket.
-
@SciGuySpace
SpaceX says the restrictions were definitely put into place by NOAA. So I'm going back to them.
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/979729261690007552
-
Meanwhile....
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
Mr Steven is 5 mins away from being under the falling fairing (don’t have live video)
This was posted at 14:43 UTC on Twitter, so that gives a rough travel time of 30 minutes for the fairing half to reach back to Earth.
-
Legal jurisdiction of any federal agency of the United States ends outside of United States territory or airspace. IMO something else is up with this flight.
What?
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.[…]
A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body.
-
According to https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/data/us-maritime-limits-and-boundaries.html (https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/data/us-maritime-limits-and-boundaries.html) NOAA has legal jurisdiction over its own vessels, aricraft and personnel anywhere in the world they may be. But as far as legal jurisdiction over private entities, vessels, aircraft and personnel it's legal jurisdiction ends at the boundaries of the attached map. The Falcon 2nd stage was well outside the boundaries on this NOAA-supplied boundary map and over international air space. SpaceX should not need permission from NOAA to operate there because NOAA does not have jurisdiction there. Either somebody at NOAA had a bad day and SpaceX decided it wasn't going to engage the hassle or there is a previously unreported NOAA secret satellite being deployed. I can think of no other reason for this bizarre situation.
There may be "United States" jurisdiction thru the Space Treaty but that would be exercised by someone other than NOAA. NOAA does not have legal jurisdiction in space unless it is a NOAA vehicle.
Perhaps he misspoke and meant to say "NASA" or some other agency? What federal agency is responsible to exercise jurisdiction in space per the Space Treaty?
-
Why would NOAA need a secret satellite?
-
According to https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/data/us-maritime-limits-and-boundaries.html (https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/data/us-maritime-limits-and-boundaries.html) NOAA has legal jurisdiction over its own vessels, aricraft and personnel anywhere in the world they may be. But as far as legal jurisdiction over private entities, vessels, aircraft and personnel it's legal jurisdiction ends at the boundaries of the attached map. The Falcon 2nd stage was well outside the boundaries on this NOAA-supplied boundary map and over international air space. SpaceX should not need permission from NOAA to operate there because NOAA does not have jurisdiction there. Either somebody at NOAA had a bad day and SpaceX decided it wasn't going to engage the hassle or there is a previously unreported NOAA secret satellite being deployed. I can think of no other reason for this bizarre situation.
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html
Welcome to NOAA CRSRA Licensing Program. This web site is intended to provide U.S. laws, regulations, policies, and guidance pertaining to the operation of commercial remote sensing satellite systems. Pursuant to the National and Commercial Space Programs Act (NCSPA or Act), 51 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq, responsibilities have been delegated from the Secretary of Commerce to the Assistant Administrator for NOAA Satellite and Information Services (NOAA/NESDIS) for the licensing of the operations of private space-based remote sensing systems.
(pretty much anything in orbit with a camera that can image earth is a private space-based remote sensing system)
-
When the fairing separated, did anyone else notice the dark spots around the fairing as it fell out of view? There's a cold-gas-thruster puff just after T+3:35, then as it falls further away some black pixels appear on either side of the fairing.
Its possible this is compression artifacts, but they appeared in specific positions and remained there for several seconds. I am attaching a photo, but its clearer on the video if you go back and watch... Did we hear anything about additional Fairing hardware to aid in recovery? Movable components (like fins) seem like a bad idea; but I could see a ballute type system as a simple device to add drag and/or help fairing orientation.
-
According to https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/data/us-maritime-limits-and-boundaries.html (https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/data/us-maritime-limits-and-boundaries.html) NOAA has legal jurisdiction over its own vessels, aricraft and personnel anywhere in the world they may be. But as far as legal jurisdiction over private entities, vessels, aircraft and personnel it's legal jurisdiction ends at the boundaries of the attached map. The Falcon 2nd stage was well outside the boundaries on this NOAA-supplied boundary map and over international air space. SpaceX should not need permission from NOAA to operate there because NOAA does not have jurisdiction there. Either somebody at NOAA had a bad day and SpaceX decided it wasn't going to engage the hassle or there is a previously unreported NOAA secret satellite being deployed. I can think of no other reason for this bizarre situation.
This is nonsense. NOAA is the federal agency responsible for overseeing space based imaging by U.S. entities. That obviously takes place outside of U.S. boundaries.
-
According to https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/data/us-maritime-limits-and-boundaries.html (https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/data/us-maritime-limits-and-boundaries.html) NOAA has legal jurisdiction over its own vessels, aricraft and personnel anywhere in the world they may be. But as far as legal jurisdiction over private entities, vessels, aircraft and personnel it's legal jurisdiction ends at the boundaries of the attached map. The Falcon 2nd stage was well outside the boundaries on this NOAA-supplied boundary map and over international air space. SpaceX should not need permission from NOAA to operate there because NOAA does not have jurisdiction there. Either somebody at NOAA had a bad day and SpaceX decided it wasn't going to engage the hassle or there is a previously unreported NOAA secret satellite being deployed. I can think of no other reason for this bizarre situation.
There may be "United States" jurisdiction thru the Space Treaty but that would be exercised by someone other than NOAA. NOAA does not have legal jurisdiction in space unless it is a NOAA vehicle.
NOAA issues licenses for satellite remote sensing.
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html
It seems likely this is related to that.
Previous speculation that SpaceX didn't get the license in time for the launch seems plausible.
-
According to https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/data/us-maritime-limits-and-boundaries.html (https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/data/us-maritime-limits-and-boundaries.html) NOAA has legal jurisdiction over its own vessels, aricraft and personnel anywhere in the world they may be. But as far as legal jurisdiction over private entities, vessels, aircraft and personnel it's legal jurisdiction ends at the boundaries of the attached map. The Falcon 2nd stage was well outside the boundaries on this NOAA-supplied boundary map and over international air space. SpaceX should not need permission from NOAA to operate there because NOAA does not have jurisdiction there. Either somebody at NOAA had a bad day and SpaceX decided it wasn't going to engage the hassle or there is a previously unreported NOAA secret satellite being deployed. I can think of no other reason for this bizarre situation.
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html
Welcome to NOAA CRSRA Licensing Program. This web site is intended to provide U.S. laws, regulations, policies, and guidance pertaining to the operation of commercial remote sensing satellite systems. Pursuant to the National and Commercial Space Programs Act (NCSPA or Act), 51 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq, responsibilities have been delegated from the Secretary of Commerce to the Assistant Administrator for NOAA Satellite and Information Services (NOAA/NESDIS) for the licensing of the operations of private space-based remote sensing systems.
(pretty much anything in orbit with a camera that can image earth is a private space-based remote sensing system)
Grandfather clause... fifty launches, no NOAA complaints. Done.
-
As an example, NOAA has issued one (and only one) license to SpaceX, for cameras on MicroSat 1 A and B:
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/files/space_x.pdf
-
(pretty much anything in orbit with a camera that can image earth is a private space-based remote sensing system)
That defies common sense. It's telemetry for observing the vehicle, not the Earth. And it's licensed by the FAA, NOAA has no jurisdiction over launch vehicles.
-
So much for continuing coverage on their Twitter page. Any word on second stage relight and/or start of sat deploy?
-
So much for continuing coverage on their Twitter page. Any word on second stage relight and/or start of sat deploy?
It's not time yet. Relight is in about another 4 minutes, then deploy starts in about 6 minutes and goes for another 15 minutes.
-
No word, but second ignition should be happening in about three minutes.
-
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html
It is unlawful for any person who is subject to the jurisdiction or control of the United States, directly or through any subsidiary or affiliate to operate a private remote sensing space system without possession of a valid license issued under the Act and the regulations.
If the second stage would qualify as a remote sensing satellite that requires a license, how would stopping the webcast make a difference?
-
No word from Elon about the fairing. Catching was announced as 5 minutes away a while back. Nothing since then. Seems like another failure. Sad but not bad. They will take some time still.
-
No word from Elon about the fairing. Catching was announced as 5 minutes away a while back. Nothing since then. Seems like another failure. Sad but not bad. They will take some time still.
Or he's waiting for having a pic of it before tweeting.
-
No word from Elon about the fairing. Catching was announced as 5 minutes away a while back. Nothing since then. Seems like another failure. Sad but not bad. They will take some time still.
Way, way too early to conclude it was failure.
-
No word from Elon about the fairing. Catching was announced as 5 minutes away a while back. Nothing since then. Seems like another failure. Sad but not bad. They will take some time still.
It would be polite to wait until all the customers payloads are deployed...
-
One other tidbit on the whole NOAA thing; the webcast displayed the entire timeline through the dispensing of all ten Iridium satellites. So either the blackout wasn't generally known within SpaceX or (more likely) it was something that came down at the last minute.
-
They are now deploying satellites...
-
It might be that all the coverage that SpaceX got for Starman raised the interest of some bureaucrat in NOAA who considered the images taken of the Earth to be remote sensing without a NOAA license! Thus perhaps followed a letter from NOAA to SpaceX of said violation and SpaceX unable to obtain a license for this launch, probably because another (more sensible) NOAA bureaucrat considers images taken from a launch vehicle to not be remote sensing. :-)
-
NOAA Communications
@NOAAComms
We are looking into questions on the broadcast interruption of this morning’s @SpaceX launch of #Iridium5. We will be in touch when we know more.
https://twitter.com/NOAAComms/status/979738481231650817 (https://twitter.com/NOAAComms/status/979738481231650817)
I'm starting to think that either some NOAA bureaucrat messed up, or somebody at SpaceX misinterpreted a NOAA communication. Either way, somebody likely screwed up.
-
Congrats SpaceX and Iridium.
Lots down, lots to go... keep on keeping on.
-
All sats are away. Congratulations to SpaceX and Iridium for the successful launch! Hopefully, SpaceX can get a license to take images of the Earth with Falcon 9 in future flights! :-)
-
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html (https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html)
It is unlawful for any person who is subject to the jurisdiction or control of the United States, directly or through any subsidiary or affiliate to operate a private remote sensing space system without possession of a valid license issued under the Act and the regulations.
The entire context of "remote sensing system" in the Outer Space Treaty is imaging the earth surface under the spacecraft's path. It was totally about the United States and the USSR photographing installations on the ground in each other's countries. It has nothing to do with video monitoring the spacecraft itself. There is no possible way that what SpaceX routinely does with its launch vehicles can be considered "remote sensing" in terms of the Outer Space Treaty.
-
Did Apollo 8 have a remote sensing licence?
-
Did Apollo 8 have a remote sensing licence?
That wasn't a private mission.
-
Did Apollo 8 have a remote sensing licence?
NOAA got the authority to oversee remote sensing in 2000. At any rate, it's for "private" spacecraft so government missions are exempted.
As are handheld cameras.
-
Did Apollo 8 have a remote sensing licence?
NOAA got the authority to oversee remote sensing in 2000. At any rate, it's for "private" spacecraft so government missions are exempted.
So, not a problem for CRS-14?
-
Did Apollo 8 have a remote sensing licence?
NOAA got the authority to oversee remote sensing in 2000. At any rate, it's for "private" spacecraft so government missions are exempted.
So, not a problem for CRS-14?
Given that the Falcon and Dragon are both owned and operated by SpaceX, not NASA, I would presume that would make them private spacecraft.
-
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html (https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html)
Welcome to NOAA CRSRA Licensing Program. This web site is intended to provide U.S. laws, regulations, policies, and guidance pertaining to the operation of commercial remote sensing satellite systems. Pursuant to the National and Commercial Space Programs Act (NCSPA or Act), 51 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq, responsibilities have been delegated from the Secretary of Commerce to the Assistant Administrator for NOAA Satellite and Information Services (NOAA/NESDIS) for the licensing of the operations of private space-based remote sensing systems.
A Falcon 9 second stage is not a satellite and performs no remote sensing of the ground track, which is the subject of Commercial Space Programs Act (NCSPA or Act), 51 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq. What SpaceX does with it's mission launches is just not covered in this law. Satellites, like weather satellites or resource identification satellites for example is the subject of this law, not video monitoring of the launch vehicle itself as it executes its mission.
-
Remote sensing theory confirmed by Eric Berger:
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/979748665479876609
-
They mentioned a single-engine boostback burn. Have they tried that before? What would be the purpose?
-
It was totally about the United States and the USSR photographing installations on the ground in each other's countries. It has nothing to do with video monitoring the spacecraft itself. There is no possible way that what SpaceX routinely does with its launch vehicles can be considered "remote sensing" in terms of the Outer Space Treaty.
Except the parts that are imaging the earth.
1:10:12 - prior iridium webcast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtdjCwo6d3Q
No, it's not a good image of the earth, with resolution of some 10km, optimistically, but the law has no limit on resolution.
'Engineering' cameras that happen to catch an image of the earth, of any resolution are not in any way exempted.
The only meaningful exclusion is 'handheld cameras', which clearly doesn't apply.
-
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html (https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html)
Welcome to NOAA CRSRA Licensing Program. This web site is intended to provide U.S. laws, regulations, policies, and guidance pertaining to the operation of commercial remote sensing satellite systems. Pursuant to the National and Commercial Space Programs Act (NCSPA or Act), 51 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq, responsibilities have been delegated from the Secretary of Commerce to the Assistant Administrator for NOAA Satellite and Information Services (NOAA/NESDIS) for the licensing of the operations of private space-based remote sensing systems.
A Falcon 9 second stage is not a satellite and performs no remote sensing of the ground track, which is the subject of Commercial Space Programs Act (NCSPA or Act), 51 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq. What SpaceX does with it's mission launches is just not covered in this law. Satellites, like weather satellites or resource identification satellites for example is the subject of this law, not video monitoring of the launch vehicle itself as it executes its mission.
Per US law, anything in orbit is a satellite. That includes rocket stages.
I believe they technically call everything man-made a "space station" in the language of the law.
-
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html (https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html)
Welcome to NOAA CRSRA Licensing Program. This web site is intended to provide U.S. laws, regulations, policies, and guidance pertaining to the operation of commercial remote sensing satellite systems. Pursuant to the National and Commercial Space Programs Act (NCSPA or Act), 51 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq, responsibilities have been delegated from the Secretary of Commerce to the Assistant Administrator for NOAA Satellite and Information Services (NOAA/NESDIS) for the licensing of the operations of private space-based remote sensing systems.
A Falcon 9 second stage is not a satellite and performs no remote sensing of the ground track, which is the subject of Commercial Space Programs Act (NCSPA or Act), 51 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq. What SpaceX does with it's mission launches is just not covered in this law. Satellites, like weather satellites or resource identification satellites for example is the subject of this law, not video monitoring of the launch vehicle itself as it executes its mission.
Which is why some bureaucrat didn't understand what he was doing and insisted that when s2 got to orbit it was a satellite and now he could strut his authority.
Heads will roll...
With what 329000 followers wanting to watch their "sporting" event, people will get frakked at gov't overreach.
Remember when "Heidi" preempted the end of a sport event. People were very upset.
As others have said, this is probably a reaction to Starman. The on orbit webcast was arguably not for engineering purposes.
-
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html (https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html)
Welcome to NOAA CRSRA Licensing Program. This web site is intended to provide U.S. laws, regulations, policies, and guidance pertaining to the operation of commercial remote sensing satellite systems. Pursuant to the National and Commercial Space Programs Act (NCSPA or Act), 51 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq, responsibilities have been delegated from the Secretary of Commerce to the Assistant Administrator for NOAA Satellite and Information Services (NOAA/NESDIS) for the licensing of the operations of private space-based remote sensing systems.
A Falcon 9 second stage is not a satellite and performs no remote sensing of the ground track, which is the subject of Commercial Space Programs Act (NCSPA or Act), 51 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq. What SpaceX does with it's mission launches is just not covered in this law. Satellites, like weather satellites or resource identification satellites for example is the subject of this law, not video monitoring of the launch vehicle itself as it executes its mission.
NOAA might disagree:
Remote-sensing space system means any instrument or device or combination thereof and any related ground based facilities capable of sensing the Earth's surface from space by making use of the properties of the electromagnetic waves emitted, reflected, or diffracted by the sensed objects. For purposes of these regulations, small, hand-held cameras shall not be considered remote-sensing space systems.
IIRC, there have even been concerns about large hand-held cameras in the past.
-
Remote sensing theory confirmed by Eric Berger:
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/979748665479876609
Tweet text/image:
So here’s the NOAA issue:
-
They mentioned a single-engine boostback burn. Have they tried that before? What would be the purpose?
They did do a single-engine boostback burn during the Iridium-NEXT F4 mission.
According to https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1wvgFIPuOmI8da9EIB88tHo9vamo&ll=30.02444444444443%2C-120.54472222222222&z=8, the boostback burn conducted last December lasted 19 seconds.
-
Keep in mind the recent failure of Swarm Technologies to obtain licenses before PSLV launch of its 0.25U sats.
Likely spurious evasions of the government oversight is enough for diplomats to make hay over it (happened all the time during the cold war), so in response there comes a overly restrictive "crackdown" as bureaucracies assert oversight.
Given diplomatic "tit for tat" going on for other reasons now, unsurprising. Also, Falcon 9 arouses certain ire/envy globally, so it's an easy target.
I can’t see how your last point has anything to do with it. This is purely an internal US bureaucratic matter, not some kind of international incident.
-
This is plain ridiculous...
-
The level of involvement here:
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/spacex-launch-falcon-9-cone-march-30/index.html
is such a good sign for SpaceX and the industry.
-
This is plain ridiculous...
Contact NOAA.
I already did.
-
So now that NOAA is all sorted can we get some info on the first stage landing and fairing recovery?
-
it's just me or this was some sort of anomaly ?
-
That's normal plume recirculation.
Nothing anomalous.
-
This is plain ridiculous...
Contact NOAA.
I already did.
As have I.
They can be contacted here: [email protected]
Or here: 301-427-2560
Per https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/generalContact.html
-
1. Welcome to the forum! You'll learn a ton...I have.
2. It's just you. IANARS (I Am Not A Rocket Scientist), but as the stack climbs into the thinner remnants of the atmosphere, this sort of recirculation is very common and apparently harmless. If I recall correctly, there are some spectacular examples of this from the Apollo days, with flame seeming to crawl 1/3 of the way up the stage.
3. Soak up the knowledgy goodness here for a while, then spring for L2. It really is "another level," and well worth the $$. Or ££ in your case.
-
I wouldn't say recirculation is "harmless"; I'd say rather it is "expected" and there is heat shielding in place to protect against it. But I haven't actually seen the math done: how much heating of the bottom of the rocket is possible with recirculated flow? Maybe although visibly spectacular the actual heat transfer is minimal and so it actually *is* "harmless"?
-
See here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39350.msg1517040#msg1517040) for previous discussion.
-
Since there was no "high-fiving", is it safe to speculate Mr.Steven dropped the flyball ala Kyle Schwarber?
-
Since there was no "high-fiving", is it safe to speculate Mr.Steven dropped the flyball ala Kyle Schwarber?
There was clapping from the Hawthorne peanut gallery around the time the simulated booster landing would occur. Nothing to do with fairing recovery in all likelihood.
-
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/979764513233715200
Still work to do.
-
Elon confirms fairing recovery was unsuccessful.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/979764513233715200
GPS guided parafoil twisted, so fairing impacted water at high speed. Air wake from fairing messing w parafoil steering. Doing helo drop tests in next few weeks to solve.
-
Elon confirms fairing recovery was unsuccessful.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/979764513233715200
GPS guided parafoil twisted, so fairing impacted water at high speed. Air wake from fairing messing w parafoil steering. Doing helo drop tests in next few weeks to solve.
Not close, but cigar for a good try ;D
-
This is plain ridiculous...
Worse than that, it's one part of the Department of Commerce (NOAA) working at cross purposes with another part of the Department of Commerce (AST).
Edit: Oops. AST is Department of Transportation. Interesting that AST may be moving to Commerce soon...
-
This is plain ridiculous...
Contact NOAA.
I already did.
As have I.
They can be contacted here: [email protected]
Or here: 301-427-2560
Per https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/generalContact.html
Ditto
-
Elon confirms fairing recovery was unsuccessful.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/979764513233715200
GPS guided parafoil twisted, so fairing impacted water at high speed. Air wake from fairing messing w parafoil steering. Doing helo drop tests in next few weeks to solve.
I bet the test half is the one that landed safely on the previous attempt. Nice cheap test hardware.
These things are big $, so figuring it out sooner will save money sooner. Time to get on with it.
-
I bet the test half is the one that landed safely on the previous attempt. Nice cheap test hardware.
These things are big $, so figuring it out sooner will save money sooner. Time to get on with it.
Do you have any source on this or is this just your speculation?
I doubt it is true.
-
I bet the test half is the one that landed safely on the previous attempt. Nice cheap test hardware.
These things are big $, so figuring it out sooner will save money sooner. Time to get on with it.
Do you have any source on this or is this just your speculation?
I doubt it is true.
I think they meant that SpaceX could use the one that soft-landed in the water for the air drop tests, not that they reflew it on this mission.
-
This is plain ridiculous...
Contact NOAA.
I already did.
As have I.
They can be contacted here: [email protected]
Or here: 301-427-2560
Per https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/generalContact.html
Ditto
Ditto
-
The rocketcam being prohibited as "earth observation" without a license is silly, but I think it's way more embarrassing that NOAA didn't even know about it when contacted...
-
The rocketcam being prohibited as "earth observation" without a license is silly, but I think it's way more embarrassing that NOAA didn't even know about it when contacted...
It's not surprising a NOAA spokesperson wouldn't have a ready answer for that, NOAA has 12k employees and only a small number of them work on the remote sensing stuff.
-
The rocketcam being prohibited as "earth observation" without a license is silly, but I think it's way more embarrassing that NOAA didn't even know about it when contacted...
It's not surprising a NOAA spokesperson wouldn't have a ready answer for that, NOAA has 12k employees and only a small number of them work on the remote sensing stuff.
Yes, it is understandable, but it's not a good look either. Just MO.
-
I would be more upset that they actually would be paying a warm body to rubber stamping obvious launch telemetry.
-
The rocketcam being prohibited as "earth observation" without a license is silly, but I think it's way more embarrassing that NOAA didn't even know about it when contacted...
It's not surprising a NOAA spokesperson wouldn't have a ready answer for that, NOAA has 12k employees and only a small number of them work on the remote sensing stuff.
The spokesperson probably wasn't familiar with it because NOAA never tried to apply it to a launch vehicle before. Which makes it even more interesting.
-
It's the same bureaucratic mentality that tells an Iowa farmer the mud puddle in his field is a protected "wetland." Maddening.
-
The spokesperson probably wasn't familiar with it because NOAA never tried to apply it to a launch vehicle before. Which makes it even more interesting.
It is not - remotely - a stretch in law to say that it applies to anything in orbit, launch vehicle or not.
Determining anything else would be a stretch - there is no 'engineering data' or 'low resolution' exception in the law.
If the regulation has in fact been enforced before in this manner is uncertain at this time, but it's very clear it applies, if the agency chooses to apply it.
-
The spokesperson probably wasn't familiar with it because NOAA never tried to apply it to a launch vehicle before. Which makes it even more interesting.
It is not - remotely - a stretch in law to say that it applies to anything in orbit, launch vehicle or not.
Determining anything else would be a stretch - there is no 'engineering data' or 'low resolution' exception in the law.
If the regulation has in fact been enforced before in this manner is uncertain at this time, but it's very clear it applies, if the agency chooses to apply it.
It might be the case that some bureaucrat brought it up for the first time with SpaceX, so they decided to cut the feed just before SS shutdown and make sure they mentioned NOAA prominently twice in the webcast. To help put some pressure on the ridiculous interpretation of the regulation.
-
SX has already stated they see no problem in the future since they will have completed the requested license.
The questions should be, "Why now?".
-
Determining anything else would be a stretch - there is no 'engineering data' or 'low resolution' exception in the law.
If the regulation has in fact been enforced before in this manner is uncertain at this time, but it's very clear it applies, if the agency chooses to apply it.
Sure, but choosing to apply it is stupid. They already exempt hand-held cameras, which are much higher resolution, can be pointed to spots of interest, etc.
Surely they could choose to exempt low-res, short time span, non pointed imagery from rocket-cams. The fact that they chose not to do this is stupid, in my mind.
-
It might be the case that some bureaucrat brought it up for the first time with SpaceX, so they decided to cut the feed just before SS shutdown and make sure they mentioned NOAA prominently twice in the webcast. To help put some pressure on the ridiculous interpretation of the regulation.
It is - having read the actual regulation and the definitions - very much not a ridiculous interpretation.
Ridiculous interpretation would be determining the other way.
Are aspects of the regulation ridiculous in effect - yes - nobody rationally cares about kilometer class imagery.
But the interpretation is pretty unambiguous.
It requires a licence to have anything in orbit with a camera that can image the earth.
However, that licence may be very easy to obtain, and 'boilerplate' for not actually serious imaging satellites.
Questions are did SpaceX forget to do something until now, or has anything changed on the NOAA side, and SpaceX applied as they normally do, but got a more restrictive licence.
-
Determining anything else would be a stretch - there is no 'engineering data' or 'low resolution' exception in the law.
If the regulation has in fact been enforced before in this manner is uncertain at this time, but it's very clear it applies, if the agency chooses to apply it.
Sure, but choosing to apply it is stupid. They already exempt hand-held cameras, which are much higher resolution, can be pointed to spots of interest, etc.
Surely they could choose to exempt low-res, short time span, non pointed imagery from rocket-cams. The fact that they chose not to do this is stupid, in my mind.
The agency does not choose to exempt hand-held cameras.
The law has a specific exemption for hand-held cameras, defined as 'cameras held by an astronaut' (paraphrasing).
It does not have an exemption for 'similar resolution to a hand-held camera', but mounted in a machine.
-
Determining anything else would be a stretch - there is no 'engineering data' or 'low resolution' exception in the law.
If the regulation has in fact been enforced before in this manner is uncertain at this time, but it's very clear it applies, if the agency chooses to apply it.
Sure, but choosing to apply it is stupid. They already exempt hand-held cameras, which are much higher resolution, can be pointed to spots of interest, etc.
Surely they could choose to exempt low-res, short time span, non pointed imagery from rocket-cams. The fact that they chose not to do this is stupid, in my mind.
The agency does not choose to exempt hand-held cameras.
The law has a specific exemption for hand-held cameras, defined as 'cameras held by an astronaut' (paraphrasing).
It does not have an exemption for 'similar resolution to a hand-held camera', but mounted in a machine.
The law says nothing about hand-held cameras. This is a regulation of NOAA, which they are free to change. The very next line after the section you quoted says
For purposes of the regulations in this part, a licensed system consists of [...]
Showing that this is a regulation, as decided by NOAA, and not from the underlying law. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but the reading seems plain. If you can find the reference in the underlying law, I'd be happy to see it.
-
Let me post my congratulations to SpaceX & Iridium on yet another successful launch.
On the 1st anniversary of the first orbital booster re-use, SpaceX celebrates with the 10th booster re-use and 21st launch (SES-10 through to Iridium-5) in that year. I think that makes re-use already routine. Pretty remarkable.
-
When the fairing separated, did anyone else notice the dark spots around the fairing as it fell out of view? There's a cold-gas-thruster puff just after T+3:35, then as it falls further away some black pixels appear on either side of the fairing.
Its possible this is compression artifacts, but they appeared in specific positions and remained there for several seconds. I am attaching a photo, but its clearer on the video if you go back and watch... Did we hear anything about additional Fairing hardware to aid in recovery? Movable components (like fins) seem like a bad idea; but I could see a ballute type system as a simple device to add drag and/or help fairing orientation.
At T+3:40, there is a call on the net: "Good .... (for) deploy." I can't quite make it out, even on the audio only YouTube. I have no idea if it's related to the fairing, to a preparation for the dispenser , or something else entirely. Anyone know?
Edit: D'oh! It's probably "Grid Fin deploy"!
-
Remote sensing theory confirmed by Eric Berger:
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/979748665479876609
Tweet text/image:
So here’s the NOAA issue:
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=44634.0;attach=1484352;image)
.
The NOAA bureaucrats weren't the first with this idea. Governments have always wanted control of "information" stuff.
Here's how Henry the Eighth of England tried to limit information from getting to the masses:
“Soon after printing presses arrived in England, Henry the Eighth resolved to own
them all himself. In 1586 the Star Chamber limited the number of presses allowed in the
kingdom. All presses had to be reported to the Stationer’s Company. When unregistered presses
proliferated anyway, the government tried to license books instead. Publication and importation
of unlicensed books was barred by Star Chamber decree in 1637. It took independent printers
until 1694 — more than half a century — to put an end to this [practice]”
—Huber, Peter. Law and Disorder in Cyberspace, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
-
Determining anything else would be a stretch - there is no 'engineering data' or 'low resolution' exception in the law.
If the regulation has in fact been enforced before in this manner is uncertain at this time, but it's very clear it applies, if the agency chooses to apply it.
Sure, but choosing to apply it is stupid. They already exempt hand-held cameras, which are much higher resolution, can be pointed to spots of interest, etc.
Surely they could choose to exempt low-res, short time span, non pointed imagery from rocket-cams. The fact that they chose not to do this is stupid, in my mind.
The agency does not choose to exempt hand-held cameras.
The law has a specific exemption for hand-held cameras, defined as 'cameras held by an astronaut' (paraphrasing).
It does not have an exemption for 'similar resolution to a hand-held camera', but mounted in a machine.
The law says nothing about hand-held cameras. This is a regulation of NOAA, which they are free to change. The very next line after the section you quoted says
For purposes of the regulations in this part, a licensed system consists of [...]
Showing that this is a regulation, as decided by NOAA, and not from the underlying law. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but the reading seems plain. If you can find the reference in the underlying law, I'd be happy to see it.
I would also be interested in knowing if ULA has also been informed of this requirement, and if we can determine if they have ever requested, and/or received, correct licensing for their own upper stage rocket cams.
I have an image of the Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)., after seeing the public interest and excitement generated by FH and the Starman videos, sending their aides off to see what kind of hitherto-unenforced regulations might be dragged up to hit SpaceX with, just as a nuisance action.
Also -- if SpaceX is not allowed to operate their upper stage cameras during payload deploy, then they won't have proof that their release mechanism works the next time NG tries to set them up to take a fall... ;)
-
Confirmed by NOAA. Have to say this is a very ham-handed way for NOAA to deal with this.
-
The spokesperson probably wasn't familiar with it because NOAA never tried to apply it to a launch vehicle before. Which makes it even more interesting.
It is not - remotely - a stretch in law to say that it applies to anything in orbit, launch vehicle or not.
Determining anything else would be a stretch - there is no 'engineering data' or 'low resolution' exception in the law.
If the regulation has in fact been enforced before in this manner is uncertain at this time, but it's very clear it applies, if the agency chooses to apply it.
SpaceX uses GoPros and similar commercially available personal cameras which arguably are allowable under the "small handheld" exception (assuming it's defined as a type of camera and whether it's actually being held in a hand is irrelevant).
As written, the law could be applied to any RF receiver. Even telemetry radio receivers, which can definitely "sense" RF emitted or reflected by the Earths surface. That's far too broad, and the agency's previous interpretation of applying the regulation only to cameras intended for Earth observation is common sense.
-
Confirmed by NOAA. Have to say this is a very ham-handed way for NOAA to deal with this.
SpaceX made sure that everyone knows that the NOAA dealt with it in a ham-handed way.
-
Confirmed by NOAA. Have to say this is a very ham-handed way for NOAA to deal with this.
The statute granting authority to NOAA - see 51 U.S.C. § 60101 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/51/60101) and subsequent chapters - has broad rules which (at least on the surface) don't appear to give them a lot of discretion.
Section 60122 says you can't do "land remote sensing" without a license.
Section 51 U.S.C. § 60101[/quote] defines it:
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/51/60101)The term “land remote sensing” means the collection of data which can be processed into imagery of surface features of the Earth from an unclassified satellite or satellites, other than an operational United States Government weather satellite.
-
The spokesperson probably wasn't familiar with it because NOAA never tried to apply it to a launch vehicle before. Which makes it even more interesting.
It is not - remotely - a stretch in law to say that it applies to anything in orbit, launch vehicle or not.
Determining anything else would be a stretch - there is no 'engineering data' or 'low resolution' exception in the law.
If the regulation has in fact been enforced before in this manner is uncertain at this time, but it's very clear it applies, if the agency chooses to apply it.
SpaceX uses GoPros and similar commercially available personal cameras which arguably are allowable under the "small handheld" exception (assuming it's defined as a type of camera and whether it's actually being held in a hand is irrelevant).
No. It is relevant. That exception is meant to allow for an actual, living person to physically/manually use a small camera to take pictures/video of the Earth during manned spaceflight and not need NOAA licensing for that action. It isn't about the camera definition. For example, if SpaceX were to launch the circumlunar Dragon flight, the exception would mean that the 2 people inside the capsule wouldn't need to get NOAA approval to take an earthrise video as they came around the Moon. Without that exception, they would need to have secured a NOAA license to legally do so.
-
Government bureaucrats enforcing ambiguous rules to limit activities never considered by the rule makers is pretty status quo. What we are seeing is a strategy by SpaceX to counter it. It is getting attention at the very least.
-
NOAA backs up SpaceX's claim from this morning
https://twitter.com/lorengrush/status/979819143233974274
Edit to add: link to NOAA press release
http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-statement-on-todays-broadcast-of-spacex-iridium-5-launch
If anything, this release just adds to the confusion. I had assumed that a full license was in the works, and pending that SpaceX had to terminate the video rebroadcast prior to achieving orbit. But the NOAA statement seems to imply that they had already received a license and that video termination was required for national security concerns.
SpaceX applied and received a license from NOAA that included conditions on their capability to live-stream from space. Conditions on Earth imaging to protect national security are common to all licenses for launches with on-orbit capabilities.
-
Confirmed by NOAA. Have to say this is a very ham-handed way for NOAA to deal with this.
The statute granting authority to NOAA - see 51 U.S.C. § 60101 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/51/60101) and subsequent chapters - has broad rules which (at least on the surface) don't appear to give them a lot of discretion.
Section 60122 says you can't do "land remote sensing" without a license.
Section 51 U.S.C. § 60101 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/51/60101)
defines it:
The term “land remote sensing” means the collection of data which can be processed into imagery of surface features of the Earth from an unclassified satellite or satellites, other than an operational United States Government weather satellite.
[/quote]
1) Change the rule -- people made it up, so people can change it
2) Clarify to the bureaucrats at NOAA that using common sense is not illegal
3) Get. A. Life.
Note: 4) If our National security is at risk from a Go-Pro, we're dead already.
-
If anyone would like to get back to discussing Iridium NEXT Flight 5 or the recovery efforts, that would also be cool.
-
NRC Quest still stays in the area of booster splashdown - it's more than nine hours.
It seems that applause in webcast at T+8:40 might mean booster has unexpectedly survived again.
Mr Steven has already missed him and continues by high speed toward port.
-
I would also be interested in knowing if ULA has also been informed of this requirement, and if we can determine if they have ever requested, and/or received, correct licensing for their own upper stage rocket cams.
I have an image of the Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)., after seeing the public interest and excitement generated by FH and the Starman videos, sending their aides off to see what kind of hitherto-unenforced regulations might be dragged up to hit SpaceX with, just as a nuisance action.
Also -- if SpaceX is not allowed to operate their upper stage cameras during payload deploy, then they won't have proof that their release mechanism works the next time NG tries to set them up to take a fall... ;)
Just goes by memory, ULA stops showing rocket cams before Centaur even reaches LEO, after that it's all simulation, except may be a short video for payload separation. Also I believe Orbital doesn't use rocket cam at all.
So, not to feed any conspiracy theories here, but if NOAA just recently started enforcing this rule, then SpaceX is the only one who was affected.
-
I thought that ULA ceased their Atlas V rocketcam footage at around 7 minutes MET due to loss of signal rather than intentional termination.
Also, Orbital ATK did use rocketcams on the early Antares missions from April 2013 to January 2014.
-
I would also be interested in knowing if ULA has also been informed of this requirement, and if we can determine if they have ever requested, and/or received, correct licensing for their own upper stage rocket cams.
I have an image of the Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)., after seeing the public interest and excitement generated by FH and the Starman videos, sending their aides off to see what kind of hitherto-unenforced regulations might be dragged up to hit SpaceX with, just as a nuisance action.
Also -- if SpaceX is not allowed to operate their upper stage cameras during payload deploy, then they won't have proof that their release mechanism works the next time NG tries to set them up to take a fall... ;)
Just goes by memory, ULA stops showing rocket cams before Centaur even reaches LEO, after that it's all simulation, except may be a short video for payload separation. Also I believe Orbital doesn't use rocket cam at all.
So, not to feed any conspiracy theories here, but if NOAA just recently started enforcing this rule, then SpaceX is the only one who was affected.
Only for classified payloads.
-
This is footage from a commercial ULA launch. It shows spacecraft separation. Even though this isn't live, the footage is still subject to the NOAA restrictions unless ULA got a waiver.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8jvGDeNYb0
-
should capturing and sharing of pictures be protected under the 1st amendment?
-
They didn’t say on the webcast that they weren’t capturing video, just that they couldn’t broadcast it. I very seriously doubt NOAA said they couldn’t use the cameras internally, just that they couldn’t be disseminated via the broadcast.
The bit in the license they do have from NOAA about national security probably means they have to have a protocol in place to ensure sensitive data/images aren’t broadcast. They’ll just need to have a mitigation strategy or be granted a waiver based on resolution limitations or other similar workaround.
-
They had to get a license from NOAA even to use the images internally. They did get a provisional license to do so, but the provisional license stipulated they couldn't livestream the images. Which is baloney; NOAA could have just as easily approved it for livestream; it was totally within their authority to do so but they chose not to do it. NOAA's decision was bad and they should feel bad.
-
Is a copy of the provisional license available for review? I easily could have missed it in amongst the increased stream of posts in here.
-
should capturing and sharing of pictures be protected under the 1st amendment?
It should be. Though its going to need a lawsuit to allege that before things change. We may be waiting a while.
-
using common sense is not illegal
You would think. But I'm less and less confident about that every day.
-
I'm not sure how preventing people seeing what countries like Russia, China, India, all of Europe, Japan, and lots of other countries see with their own imaging satellites protects the National Security of the US, especially at a resolution measured in the kilometres. There are some countries allied to the US who I believe request that images of their country not be made publicly available, but as we have seen from previous webcasts, the resolution from rocket cams would be too low to be of any use to anybody. Anyway, it seems a common sense approach would be that licenses should only be required for satellites that have a resolution below a certain limit, say 80 metres, which was roughly the resolution (actual was 68x83 m) of the first Landsat satellite launched in 1972, limited by the US so as not to be useful for military purposes at that time.
https://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/the-multispectral-scanner-system/
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB404/
"In 1972, the United States orbited what was initially known as the Earth Resources Technology Satellite (ERTS) and then as LANDSAT. LANDSAT satellites, the most recent version being LANDSAT 7, have produced both black-and-white and multispectral imagery of low resolution. For national security reasons, the United States initially sought to limit the ability of LANDSAT and any other commercial satellites that might be developed and restricted resolution to 33 feet or worse. Although 33 feet was better than the original resolution of the very first U.S. KEYHOLE cameras – the KH-1 – which produced images with about 35 foot resolution, it was far inferior to U.S. capabilities in the early 1970s and beyond. "
-
They had to get a license from NOAA even to use the images internally. They did get a provisional license to do so, but the provisional license stipulated they couldn't livestream the images. Which is baloney; NOAA could have just as easily approved it for livestream; it was totally within their authority to do so but they chose not to do it. NOAA's decision was bad and they should feel bad.
Agree - I wonder if the Russians need to get a NOAA license for their super high resolution spy satellites? ;D
-
They had to get a license from NOAA even to use the images internally. They did get a provisional license to do so, but the provisional license stipulated they couldn't livestream the images. Which is baloney; NOAA could have just as easily approved it for livestream; it was totally within their authority to do so but they chose not to do it. NOAA's decision was bad and they should feel bad.
Agree - I wonder if the Russians need to get a NOAA license for their super high resolution spy satellites? ;D
Nah, they get it from the Kremlin. With the addendum that better be a good picture or tenure at some Arctic weather station. :)
-
They had to get a license from NOAA even to use the images internally. They did get a provisional license to do so, but the provisional license stipulated they couldn't livestream the images. Which is baloney; NOAA could have just as easily approved it for livestream; it was totally within their authority to do so but they chose not to do it. NOAA's decision was bad and they should feel bad.
Agree - I wonder if the Russians need to get a NOAA license for their super high resolution spy satellites? ;D
The law applies only to US persons or US companies. (yes, I recognize that your question was joking, but just in case anyone is confused I've provided a straight answer)
-
NOAA has a list of licensees on their CRSRA Licensing page here:
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html
SpaceX is listed as a licensee, but for Microsat 1 A/B not for anything Falcon. All of the licensees listed on that page are satellites. I don't see anything on the page that gives a hint that a launch vehicle upper stage has ever been licensed.
-
SpaceX is listed as a licensee, but for Microsat 1 A/B not for anything Falcon. All of the licensees listed on that page are satellites. I don't see anything on the page that gives a hint that a launch vehicle upper stage has ever been licensed.
There may be other licenses in the past that were in principle required under an accurate reading of the law.
Nearly all satellite deployment footage, as well as most ISS cameras, other than handheld ones.
Dragon-side footage of solar panel deploy, ...
And just because they're choosing not to enforce a law in the past doesn't mean they can't start enforcing it now legally.
-
Let’s just hope they will apply it uniformly then, not selectively to just one company...
-
SpaceX is listed as a licensee, but for Microsat 1 A/B not for anything Falcon. All of the licensees listed on that page are satellites. I don't see anything on the page that gives a hint that a launch vehicle upper stage has ever been licensed.
There may be other licenses in the past that were in principle required under an accurate reading of the law.
Nearly all satellite deployment footage, as well as most ISS cameras, other than handheld ones.
Dragon-side footage of solar panel deploy, ...
And just because they're choosing not to enforce a law in the past doesn't mean they can't start enforcing it now legally.
As the law was designed to cover SAR and other observation radars, ANY RF sensor that can detect any electromagnetic spectrum either emitted or reflected by Earth is a "sensing" platform. So by a strict reading NOAA should be requiring all radio receivers on orbit to be licensed, as they are all capable of this.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/15/960.3
The spokesperson probably wasn't familiar with it because NOAA never tried to apply it to a launch vehicle before. Which makes it even more interesting.
It is not - remotely - a stretch in law to say that it applies to anything in orbit, launch vehicle or not.
Determining anything else would be a stretch - there is no 'engineering data' or 'low resolution' exception in the law.
If the regulation has in fact been enforced before in this manner is uncertain at this time, but it's very clear it applies, if the agency chooses to apply it.
SpaceX uses GoPros and similar commercially available personal cameras which arguably are allowable under the "small handheld" exception (assuming it's defined as a type of camera and whether it's actually being held in a hand is irrelevant).
No. It is relevant. That exception is meant to allow for an actual, living person to physically/manually use a small camera to take pictures/video of the Earth during manned spaceflight and not need NOAA licensing for that action. It isn't about the camera definition. For example, if SpaceX were to launch the circumlunar Dragon flight, the exception would mean that the 2 people inside the capsule wouldn't need to get NOAA approval to take an earthrise video as they came around the Moon. Without that exception, they would need to have secured a NOAA license to legally do so.
The law does not specify that "hand-held camera" means it actually has to be operated by hand. "Hand-held camera" is commonly understood to be a class of camera that are typically used freehand - but mounting one on a tripod does not mean it isn't a handheld camera.
A GoPro is a small, hand-held camera. Even if you put it on a selfie stick, a helmet mount, or a rocket. It is commonly understood to be a description of the camera itself, not of the manner in which it is being used at a given time.
As for what the law is "meant" for, that is up to a court to decide, should anyone decide to contest it.
-
There may be other licenses in the past that were in principle required under an accurate reading of the law.
I think instead of "accurate" you mean "pedantic".
For example, by your interpretation, you need a licence to look at the moon. The lunar surface is a space-based reflector, in orbit around the earth. And it enables you to see electromagnetic waves reflected from the Earth (this is the illumination of the dark portion, called "Earthshine".) And this is actually done for remote sensing purposes of various kinds, unlike the rocket-cams.
Of course you can take a picture of it, with a hand-held camera. But you can't actually look at it, or use a telescope, unless you have obtained the proper license.
-
There may be other licenses in the past that were in principle required under an accurate reading of the law.
I think instead of "accurate" you mean "pedantic".
For example, by your interpretation, you need a licence to look at the moon. The lunar surface is a space-based reflector, in orbit around the earth. And it enables you to see electromagnetic waves reflected from the Earth (this is the illumination of the dark portion, called "Earthshine".) And this is actually done for remote sensing purposes of various kinds, unlike the rocket-cams.
Of course you can take a picture of it, with a hand-held camera. But you can't actually look at it, or use a telescope, unless you have obtained the proper license.
Not to be snarky or anything but the law deals with remote sensing in orbit. In your example you are not in orbit about the earth so it doesn’t apply.
-
There may be other licenses in the past that were in principle required under an accurate reading of the law.
I think instead of "accurate" you mean "pedantic".
For example, by your interpretation, you need a licence to look at the moon. The lunar surface is a space-based reflector, in orbit around the earth. And it enables you to see electromagnetic waves reflected from the Earth (this is the illumination of the dark portion, called "Earthshine".) And this is actually done for remote sensing purposes of various kinds, unlike the rocket-cams.
Of course you can take a picture of it, with a hand-held camera. But you can't actually look at it, or use a telescope, unless you have obtained the proper license.
Not to be snarky or anything but the law deals with remote sensing in orbit. In your example you are not in orbit about the earth so it doesn’t apply.
In his example, you are on earth, using a thing that is in orbit, to sense the earth surface.
How is this different from being on earth, using the falcon9 second stage, to sense the earth surface?
.
Or is it the ownership of the orbiting thing that makes the difference?
.
I admit this is an *extreme* example, but the analogy is sound.
-
Or is it the ownership of the orbiting thing that makes the difference?
The ownership of the orbiting thing does make a difference. The moon was not built and launched by a U.S.-related entity.
-
There may be other licenses in the past that were in principle required under an accurate reading of the law.
I think instead of "accurate" you mean "pedantic".
For example, by your interpretation, you need a licence to look at the moon. The lunar surface is a space-based reflector, in orbit around the earth. And it enables you to see electromagnetic waves reflected from the Earth (this is the illumination of the dark portion, called "Earthshine".) And this is actually done for remote sensing purposes of various kinds, unlike the rocket-cams.
Of course you can take a picture of it, with a hand-held camera. But you can't actually look at it, or use a telescope, unless you have obtained the proper license.
Not to be snarky or anything but the law deals with remote sensing in orbit. In your example you are not in orbit about the earth so it doesn’t apply.
In his example, you are on earth, using a thing that is in orbit, to sense the earth surface.
How is this different from being on earth, using the falcon9 second stage, to sense the earth surface?
.
Or is it the ownership of the orbiting thing that makes the difference?
.
I admit this is an *extreme* example, but the analogy is sound.
I would argue that the sensor is you or the telescope or camera on earth sensing a reflection off the moon. On the 2nd stage the sensor is on the orbiting stage and it is transmitting what it sensed to the ground. But also Gongora’s point is valid as well. I’ll be honest I don’t know if launching a giant mirror into space that is used to reflect imagery back to earth for sensing by earthbound sensors would be covered by NOAA.
-
C'mon, guys, you're being silly. What counts in the law is the definition of remote sensing space system. Making up odd scenarios is for the party thread.
-
Let’s just hope they will apply it uniformly then, not selectively to just one company...
Let's hope they apply it (probably modifying the language in it first) with some intelligence.
Bureaucracies are not all-powerful...
They routinely need to be reeled in* when they get too obtrusive.
Like now.
* Frequently takes a lawsuit, though most won't waste their time for such trivialities and annoyances.
Occasionally, someone rational in government works to eliminate excessive and counter-productive rules.
There is such a movement underway now that might wash this one away.
-
Let’s just hope they will apply it uniformly then, not selectively to just one company...
http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-statement-on-todays-broadcast-of-spacex-iridium-5-launch
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.
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.
-
At the end of the webcast, this claim was made:
“Though we are ending our live coverage now due to restrictions from NOAA….”
NO.
Regardless of NOAA’s ham-handed recent decision to not allow video to be shown once it made orbit, it was SpaceX’s choice to abruptly end their webcast immediately, not NOAA.
Rather than keep it going to provide live commentary as to the successful deployments of the satellites. So the ending of the webcast was 100% on SpaceX.
I suspect it was more along the lines of some officials at SpaceX having a “snit” about the NOAA orbital video thing, in retaliation choosing to end the webcast abruptly and falsely blame NOAA for the abrupt ending, to cause a public reaction against NOAA.
But SpaceX was doing the public a dis-service by ending the webcast rather than continue on to report the deployments of all the satellites without showing onboard video. Their webcasts often go long long stretches without any onboard video anyway, computer orbital plots and background music with no commentary until a final burn 20-40 minutes later or other deployment events long after final shutdown.
-
Maybe that's the other half. The better half! The half that did not smash into the ocean. No one has mentioned whether or not it soft landed. But then, no one has mentioned it being instrumented/equipt to soft-land either.
-
At the end of the webcast, this claim was made:
“Though we are ending our live coverage now due to restrictions from NOAA….”
NO.
Regardless of NOAA’s ham-handed recent decision to not allow video to be shown once it made orbit, it was SpaceX’s choice to abruptly end their webcast immediately, not NOAA.
Rather than keep it going to provide live commentary as to the successful deployments of the satellites. So the ending of the webcast was 100% on SpaceX.
I suspect it was more along the lines of some officials at SpaceX having a “snit” about the NOAA orbital video thing, in retaliation choosing to end the webcast abruptly and falsely blame NOAA for the abrupt ending, to cause a public reaction against NOAA.
But SpaceX was doing the public a dis-service by ending the webcast rather than continue on to report the deployments of all the satellites without showing onboard video. Their webcasts often go long long stretches without any onboard video anyway, computer orbital plots and background music with no commentary until a final burn 20-40 minutes later or other deployment events long after final shutdown.
They announced the satellite deployments on Twitter as they happened anyway. It really wouldn't have made much difference as seeing hardware in space is what people are watching the webcast for, and doing something despite not having the license to do it is just acting for trouble.
-
Maybe that's the other half. The better half! The half that did not smash into the ocean. No one has mentioned whether or not it soft landed. But then, no one has mentioned it being instrumented/equipt to soft-land either.
Webcast mentioned that only one half would attempt recovery :) So that pretty much precludes two attempts, unless SpaceX made a massive error in their coverage. And I can confirm that the PAZ half is elsewhere, so not some odd testing with that half.
-
Maybe that's the other half. The better half! The half that did not smash into the ocean. No one has mentioned whether or not it soft landed. But then, no one has mentioned it being instrumented/equipt to soft-land either.
Webcast mentioned that only one half would attempt recovery :) So that pretty much precludes two attempts, unless SpaceX made a massive error in their coverage. And I can confirm that the PAZ half is elsewhere, so not some odd testing with that half.
Probably, but it is not all cut and dried. Just what constitutes an attempted recovery. Splitting hairs maybe but couldn't "attempt recovery" mean every step of recovery including catching it in the net? In that case, we know that they only have one net but it doesn't mean that they only have one parachute.
-
Let’s just hope they will apply it uniformly then, not selectively to just one company...
Selectivity doesn't matter in this case, as discussed earlier SpaceX is pretty much the only US launch company who provides on orbit live stream, the only exception is when ULA launches a commercial LEO payload (which is maybe once a few years), so the enforcement of this rule would have disproportionate impact on SpaceX alone no matter what. The best thing we can hope for is they can get a live stream license quickly and painlessly.
-
Hmmmmmmmmm. Just thought about the sheer amount of time between separation and apparent touchdown. Assuming the fairings separated at 14:16 UTC and landed (per Musk's tweet at 15:43 UTC) and 15:48 UTC - separating at 110km, that would put the average vertical velocity at no more than 25 m/s, which means that it must be sailing in the atmosphere for like ~80+ minutes of that time to counteract the fact that it's traveling ~2.3 KILOMETER per second at separation.
Perhaps I did my math wrong (strong possibility), or perhaps Musk's tweet was sent without internet access and only posted once he had a connection again (unlikely).
-
Hmmmmmmmmm. Just thought about the sheer amount of time between separation and apparent touchdown. Assuming the fairings separated at 14:16 UTC and landed (per Musk's tweet at 15:43 UTC) and 15:48 UTC - separating at 110km, that would put the average vertical velocity at no more than 25 m/s, which means that it must be sailing in the atmosphere for like ~80+ minutes of that time to counteract the fact that it's traveling ~2.3 KILOMETER per second at separation.
Perhaps I did my math wrong (strong possibility), or perhaps Musk's tweet was sent without internet access and only posted once he had a connection again (unlikely).
Your fairing landing time is an hour off. Fairing landing was at 14:48 (ish) UTC
Elon Musk's tweet was at 7:43 am PST which is 14:43 UST
-
So they managed to recover the fairing after all, after it landed in the water?
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-recovers-fairing-half-mr-steven-clawboat-iridium-launch/
(https://cdn.teslarati.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/first-successful-fairing-recovery-1-Elon-Musk-576x576.jpg)
-
So they managed to recover the fairing after all, after it landed in the water?
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-recovers-fairing-half-mr-steven-clawboat-iridium-launch/
(https://cdn.teslarati.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/first-successful-fairing-recovery-1-Elon-Musk-576x576.jpg)
That picture is from Elon's Instagram, just after PAZ. Just an example of what this fairing likely did, too. Posted this article in the updates thread, BTW :)
-
Too bad, and you can view sea water sloshing inside.
Perhaps the perfect drop test article if they managed to get it out of the water structurally intact.
-
Too bad, and you can view sea water sloshing inside.
Perhaps the perfect drop test article if they managed to get it out of the water structurally intact.
Sounds like your earlier source (“can’t say more”) misled you or didn’t know what they were talking about.
-
Too bad, and you can view sea water sloshing inside.
Perhaps the perfect drop test article if they managed to get it out of the water structurally intact.
Sounds like your earlier source (“can’t say more”) misled you or didn’t know what they were talking about.
I think you're confusing PAZ and Iridium-5. Haven't heard anything yet about the condition of this half.