SpaceX F9 : Iridium NEXT Flight 5 : March 30, 2018 @ Vandenberg : Discussion

[envy887]

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.

[docmordrid]

It's the same bureaucratic mentality  that tells an Iowa farmer the mud puddle in his field is a protected "wetland." Maddening.

[speedevil]

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.

[Surfdaddy]

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.

[Kansan52]

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?".

[LouScheffer]

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.

[speedevil]

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.

[speedevil]

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.

[LouScheffer]

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.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

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.

[darkenfast]

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"!

[Llian Rhydderch]

Remote sensing theory confirmed by Eric Berger:

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

Tweet text/image:

So here’s the NOAA issue:

.

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.}

[the_other_Doug]

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...

[RedLineTrain]

Confirmed by NOAA.  Have to say this is a very ham-handed way for NOAA to deal with this.

[envy887]

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.

[Brovane]

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. 

[launchwatcher]

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 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:

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.

[deruch]

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.

[intrepidpursuit]

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.

[kdhilliard]

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.