Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Iridium NEXT Flight 5 : March 30, 2018 @ Vandenberg : Discussion (Read 92069 times)

AncientU · « **Reply #200 on:** 03/30/2018 10:49 pm »

Quote from: launchwatcher on 03/30/2018 09:23 pm

Quote from: RedLineTrain on 03/30/2018 09:03 pm
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

defines it:

Quote

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.

Prettz · « **Reply #201 on:** 03/30/2018 11:35 pm »

If anyone would like to get back to discussing Iridium NEXT Flight 5 or the recovery efforts, that would also be cool.

Raul · « **Reply #202 on:** 03/31/2018 12:07 am »

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.

su27k · « **Reply #203 on:** 03/31/2018 03:37 am »

Quote from: the_other_Doug on 03/30/2018 07:55 pm

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.

ZachS09 · « **Reply #204 on:** 03/31/2018 03:50 am »

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.

John Santos · « **Reply #205 on:** 03/31/2018 03:51 am »

Quote from: su27k on 03/31/2018 03:37 am

Quote from: the_other_Doug on 03/30/2018 07:55 pm
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.

Michael Baylor · « **Reply #206 on:** 03/31/2018 04:01 am »

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.

dorkmo · « **Reply #207 on:** 03/31/2018 04:25 am »

should capturing and sharing of pictures be protected under the 1st amendment?

cppetrie · « **Reply #208 on:** 03/31/2018 05:03 am »

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.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #209 on:** 03/31/2018 05:08 am »

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.

cppetrie · « **Reply #210 on:** 03/31/2018 05:15 am »

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.

mlindner · « **Reply #211 on:** 03/31/2018 05:35 am »

Quote from: dorkmo on 03/31/2018 04:25 am

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.

rickl · « **Reply #212 on:** 03/31/2018 06:18 am »

Quote from: AncientU on 03/30/2018 10:49 pm

using common sense is not illegal

You would think. But I'm less and less confident about that every day.

Steven Pietrobon · « **Reply #213 on:** 03/31/2018 06:49 am »

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. "

Slarty1080 · « **Reply #214 on:** 03/31/2018 10:12 am »

Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/31/2018 05:08 am

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?

Zed_Noir · « **Reply #215 on:** 03/31/2018 12:23 pm »

Quote from: Slarty1080 on 03/31/2018 10:12 am

Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/31/2018 05:08 am
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?

Nah, they get it from the Kremlin. With the addendum that better be a good picture or tenure at some Arctic weather station.

deruch · « **Reply #216 on:** 03/31/2018 01:37 pm »

Quote from: Slarty1080 on 03/31/2018 10:12 am

Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/31/2018 05:08 am
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?

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)

AstroBrewer · « **Reply #217 on:** 03/31/2018 07:02 pm »

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.

speedevil · « **Reply #218 on:** 03/31/2018 07:24 pm »

Quote from: AstroBrewer on 03/31/2018 07:02 pm

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.

toruonu · « **Reply #219 on:** 03/31/2018 07:54 pm »

Let’s just hope they will apply it uniformly then, not selectively to just one company...