Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Iridium NEXT Flight 5 : March 30, 2018 @ Vandenberg : Discussion (Read 92068 times)

gongora · « **Reply #120 on:** 03/30/2018 02:57 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.

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.

whitelancer64 · « **Reply #121 on:** 03/30/2018 02:57 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.

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.

AncientU · « **Reply #122 on:** 03/30/2018 02:59 pm »

Quote from: speedevil 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)

Grandfather clause... fifty launches, no NOAA complaints. Done.

Yellowstone10 · « **Reply #123 on:** 03/30/2018 02:59 pm »

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

envy887 · « **Reply #124 on:** 03/30/2018 03:00 pm »

Quote from: speedevil on 03/30/2018 02:55 pm

(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.

bsegal · « **Reply #125 on:** 03/30/2018 03:00 pm »

So much for continuing coverage on their Twitter page. Any word on second stage relight and/or start of sat deploy?

e of pi · « **Reply #126 on:** 03/30/2018 03:02 pm »

Quote from: bsegal on 03/30/2018 03:00 pm

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.

Steven Pietrobon · « **Reply #127 on:** 03/30/2018 03:03 pm »

No word, but second ignition should be happening in about three minutes.

saliva_sweet · « **Reply #128 on:** 03/30/2018 03:05 pm »

Quote from: gongora on 03/30/2018 02:07 pm

https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html

Quote
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?

guckyfan · « **Reply #129 on:** 03/30/2018 03:06 pm »

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.

Jarnis · « **Reply #130 on:** 03/30/2018 03:09 pm »

Quote from: guckyfan on 03/30/2018 03:06 pm

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.

Mader Levap · « **Reply #131 on:** 03/30/2018 03:10 pm »

Quote from: guckyfan on 03/30/2018 03:06 pm

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.

rockets4life97 · « **Reply #132 on:** 03/30/2018 03:12 pm »

Quote from: guckyfan on 03/30/2018 03:06 pm

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...

abaddon · « **Reply #133 on:** 03/30/2018 03:16 pm »

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.

webdan · « **Reply #134 on:** 03/30/2018 03:18 pm »

They are now deploying satellites...

Steven Pietrobon · « **Reply #135 on:** 03/30/2018 03:19 pm »

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. :-)

Mongo62 · « **Reply #136 on:** 03/30/2018 03:24 pm »

Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/30/2018 03:21 pm

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

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.

AncientU · « **Reply #137 on:** 03/30/2018 03:27 pm »

Congrats SpaceX and Iridium.
Lots down, lots to go... keep on keeping on.

Steven Pietrobon · « **Reply #138 on:** 03/30/2018 03:30 pm »

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! :-)

clongton · « **Reply #139 on:** 03/30/2018 03:36 pm »

Quote from: gongora on 03/30/2018 02:07 pm

https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html

Quote
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.