Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Iridium NEXT Flight 5 : March 30, 2018 @ Vandenberg : Discussion (Read 92062 times)

matthewkantar · « **Reply #100 on:** 03/30/2018 02:32 pm »

Quote from: abaddon on 03/30/2018 02:32 pm

Quote from: docmordrid on 03/30/2018 02:28 pm
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.

clongton · « **Reply #101 on:** 03/30/2018 02:32 pm »

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.

Lar · « **Reply #102 on:** 03/30/2018 02:33 pm »

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...

Mark Lattimer · « **Reply #103 on:** 03/30/2018 02:34 pm »

They didn't want the ZUMA fly-by to be on camera

Mongo62 · « **Reply #104 on:** 03/30/2018 02:35 pm »

Quote from: Pete on 03/30/2018 02:25 pm

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.

envy887 · « **Reply #105 on:** 03/30/2018 02:35 pm »

Quote from: clongton on 03/30/2018 02:32 pm

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.

IntoTheVoid · « **Reply #106 on:** 03/30/2018 02:36 pm »

NOAA aside...

That sure sounded like Matt Desch counted down the last 30 seconds before launch.

gongora · « **Reply #107 on:** 03/30/2018 02:36 pm »

Quote from: clongton on 03/30/2018 02:32 pm

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.

envy887 · « **Reply #108 on:** 03/30/2018 02:37 pm »

Quote from: Mark Lattimer on 03/30/2018 02:34 pm

They didn't want the ZUMA fly-by to be on camera

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.

Phil Stooke · « **Reply #109 on:** 03/30/2018 02:37 pm »

"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.

Bender · « **Reply #110 on:** 03/30/2018 02:38 pm »

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.

whitelancer64 · « **Reply #111 on:** 03/30/2018 02:39 pm »

Quote from: clongton on 03/30/2018 02:32 pm

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.

Mader Levap · « **Reply #112 on:** 03/30/2018 02:39 pm »

Whatever that screwup is, I am happy it was in bureaucratic paperworkology and not in rocket.

Rebel44 · « **Reply #113 on:** 03/30/2018 02:39 pm »

@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

Galactic Penguin SST · « **Reply #114 on:** 03/30/2018 02:47 pm »

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.

WulfTheSaxon · « **Reply #115 on:** 03/30/2018 02:48 pm »

Quote from: clongton on 03/30/2018 02:32 pm

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?

Quote from: Outer Space Treaty

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.

clongton · « **Reply #116 on:** 03/30/2018 02:50 pm »

According to 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?

envy887 · « **Reply #117 on:** 03/30/2018 02:54 pm »

Why would NOAA need a secret satellite?

speedevil · « **Reply #118 on:** 03/30/2018 02:55 pm »

Quote from: clongton on 03/30/2018 02:50 pm

According to 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

Quote

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)

NWade · « **Reply #119 on:** 03/30/2018 02:55 pm »

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.