Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Iridium NEXT Flight 5 : March 30, 2018 @ Vandenberg : Discussion (Read 92070 times)

geza · « **Reply #140 on:** 03/30/2018 03:39 pm »

Did Apollo 8 have a remote sensing licence?

gongora · « **Reply #141 on:** 03/30/2018 03:40 pm »

Quote from: geza on 03/30/2018 03:39 pm

Did Apollo 8 have a remote sensing licence?

That wasn't a private mission.

whitelancer64 · « **Reply #142 on:** 03/30/2018 03:40 pm »

Quote from: geza on 03/30/2018 03:39 pm

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.

rockets4life97 · « **Reply #143 on:** 03/30/2018 03:42 pm »

Quote from: whitelancer64 on 03/30/2018 03:40 pm

Quote from: geza on 03/30/2018 03:39 pm
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?

whitelancer64 · « **Reply #144 on:** 03/30/2018 03:46 pm »

Quote from: rockets4life97 on 03/30/2018 03:42 pm

Quote from: whitelancer64 on 03/30/2018 03:40 pm
Quote from: geza on 03/30/2018 03:39 pm
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.

clongton · « **Reply #145 on:** 03/30/2018 03:50 pm »

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.

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.

Yellowstone10 · « **Reply #146 on:** 03/30/2018 03:56 pm »

Remote sensing theory confirmed by Eric Berger:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/979748665479876609

Prettz · « **Reply #147 on:** 03/30/2018 03:57 pm »

They mentioned a single-engine boostback burn. Have they tried that before? What would be the purpose?

speedevil · « **Reply #148 on:** 03/30/2018 03:59 pm »

Quote from: clongton on 03/30/2018 03:36 pm

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.

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.

whitelancer64 · « **Reply #149 on:** 03/30/2018 04:00 pm »

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

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.

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.

jpo234 · « **Reply #150 on:** 03/30/2018 04:03 pm »

Quote from: rsdavis9 on 03/30/2018 03:58 pm

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

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.

WulfTheSaxon · « **Reply #151 on:** 03/30/2018 04:05 pm »

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

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.

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:

Quote from: 15 CFR § 960.3

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.

su27k · « **Reply #152 on:** 03/30/2018 04:06 pm »

Quote from: Yellowstone10 on 03/30/2018 03:56 pm

Remote sensing theory confirmed by Eric Berger:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/979748665479876609

Tweet text/image:

Quote

So here’s the NOAA issue:

ZachS09 · « **Reply #153 on:** 03/30/2018 04:07 pm »

Quote from: Prettz on 03/30/2018 03:57 pm

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.

Star One · « **Reply #154 on:** 03/30/2018 04:08 pm »

Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/30/2018 04:01 pm

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.