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

[envy887]

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.

As the law was designed to cover SAR and other observation radars, ANY RF sensor that can detect any electromagnetic spectrum either emitted or reflected by Earth is a "sensing" platform. So by a strict reading NOAA should be requiring all radio receivers on orbit to be licensed, as they are all capable of this.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/15/960.3

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.

The law does not specify that "hand-held camera" means it actually has to be operated by hand. "Hand-held camera" is commonly understood to be a class of camera that are typically used freehand - but mounting one on a tripod does not mean it isn't a handheld camera.

A GoPro is a small, hand-held camera. Even if you put it on a selfie stick, a helmet mount, or a rocket. It is commonly understood to be a description of the camera itself, not of the manner in which it is being used at a given time.

As for what the law is "meant" for, that is up to a court to decide, should anyone decide to contest it.

[LouScheffer]

There may be other licenses in the past that were in principle required under an accurate reading of the law.

I think instead of "accurate" you mean "pedantic".

For example, by your interpretation, you need a licence to look at the moon.  The lunar surface is a space-based reflector, in orbit around the earth.  And it enables you to see electromagnetic waves reflected from the Earth (this is the illumination of the dark portion, called "Earthshine".)  And this is actually done for remote sensing purposes of various kinds, unlike the rocket-cams.

Of course you can take a picture of it, with a hand-held camera.  But you can't actually look at it, or use a telescope, unless you have obtained the proper license.

[cppetrie]

There may be other licenses in the past that were in principle required under an accurate reading of the law.

I think instead of "accurate" you mean "pedantic".

For example, by your interpretation, you need a licence to look at the moon.  The lunar surface is a space-based reflector, in orbit around the earth.  And it enables you to see electromagnetic waves reflected from the Earth (this is the illumination of the dark portion, called "Earthshine".)  And this is actually done for remote sensing purposes of various kinds, unlike the rocket-cams.

Of course you can take a picture of it, with a hand-held camera.  But you can't actually look at it, or use a telescope, unless you have obtained the proper license.

Not to be snarky or anything but the law deals with remote sensing in orbit. In your example you are not in orbit about the earth so it doesn’t apply.

[Pete]

There may be other licenses in the past that were in principle required under an accurate reading of the law.

I think instead of "accurate" you mean "pedantic".

For example, by your interpretation, you need a licence to look at the moon.  The lunar surface is a space-based reflector, in orbit around the earth.  And it enables you to see electromagnetic waves reflected from the Earth (this is the illumination of the dark portion, called "Earthshine".)  And this is actually done for remote sensing purposes of various kinds, unlike the rocket-cams.

Of course you can take a picture of it, with a hand-held camera.  But you can't actually look at it, or use a telescope, unless you have obtained the proper license.

Not to be snarky or anything but the law deals with remote sensing in orbit. In your example you are not in orbit about the earth so it doesn’t apply.

In his example, you are on earth, using a thing that is in orbit, to sense the earth surface.
How is this different from being on earth, using the falcon9 second stage, to sense the earth surface?
.
Or is it the ownership of the orbiting thing that makes the difference?
.
I admit this is an *extreme* example, but the analogy is sound.

[gongora]

Or is it the ownership of the orbiting thing that makes the difference?

The ownership of the orbiting thing does make a difference.  The moon was not built and launched by a U.S.-related entity.

[cppetrie]

There may be other licenses in the past that were in principle required under an accurate reading of the law.

I think instead of "accurate" you mean "pedantic".

For example, by your interpretation, you need a licence to look at the moon.  The lunar surface is a space-based reflector, in orbit around the earth.  And it enables you to see electromagnetic waves reflected from the Earth (this is the illumination of the dark portion, called "Earthshine".)  And this is actually done for remote sensing purposes of various kinds, unlike the rocket-cams.

Of course you can take a picture of it, with a hand-held camera.  But you can't actually look at it, or use a telescope, unless you have obtained the proper license.

Not to be snarky or anything but the law deals with remote sensing in orbit. In your example you are not in orbit about the earth so it doesn’t apply.

In his example, you are on earth, using a thing that is in orbit, to sense the earth surface.
How is this different from being on earth, using the falcon9 second stage, to sense the earth surface?
.
Or is it the ownership of the orbiting thing that makes the difference?
.
I admit this is an *extreme* example, but the analogy is sound.

I would argue that the sensor is you or the telescope or camera on earth sensing a reflection off the moon. On the 2nd stage the sensor is on the orbiting stage and it is transmitting what it sensed to the ground. But also Gongora’s point is valid as well. I’ll be honest I don’t know if launching a giant mirror into space that is used to reflect imagery back to earth for sensing by earthbound sensors would be covered by NOAA.

[RonM]

C'mon, guys, you're being silly. What counts in the law is the definition of remote sensing space system. Making up odd scenarios is for the party thread.

[AncientU]

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

Let's hope they apply it (probably modifying the language in it first) with some intelligence.
Bureaucracies are not all-powerful...
They routinely need to be reeled in* when they get too obtrusive.
Like now.


* Frequently takes a lawsuit, though most won't waste their time for such trivialities and annoyances. 
Occasionally, someone rational in government works to eliminate excessive and counter-productive rules.
There is such a movement underway now that might wash this one away.

[gongora]

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

http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-statement-on-todays-broadcast-of-spacex-iridium-5-launch

The National and Commercial Space Program Act requires a commercial remote sensing license for companies having the capacity to take an image of Earth while on orbit.

Now that launch companies are putting video cameras on stage 2 rockets that reach an on-orbit status, all such launches will be held to the requirements of the law and its conditions.   

[georgegassaway]

At the end of the webcast, this claim was made:

“Though we are ending our live coverage now due to restrictions from NOAA….”

NO.

Regardless of NOAA’s ham-handed recent decision to not allow video to be shown once it made orbit, it was SpaceX’s choice to abruptly end their webcast immediately, not NOAA. 

Rather than keep it going to provide live commentary as to the successful deployments of the satellites. So the ending of the webcast was 100% on SpaceX.

 I suspect it was more along the lines of some officials at SpaceX having a “snit” about the NOAA orbital video thing, in retaliation choosing to end the webcast abruptly and falsely blame NOAA for the abrupt ending, to cause a public reaction against NOAA.

But SpaceX was doing the public a dis-service by ending the webcast rather than continue on to report the deployments of all the satellites without showing onboard video. Their webcasts often go long long stretches without any onboard video anyway, computer orbital plots and background music with no commentary until a final burn 20-40 minutes later or other deployment events long after final shutdown.

[aero]

Maybe that's the other half. The better half! The half that did not smash into the ocean. No one has mentioned whether or not it soft landed. But then, no one has mentioned it being instrumented/equipt to soft-land either.

[tvg98]

At the end of the webcast, this claim was made:

“Though we are ending our live coverage now due to restrictions from NOAA….”

NO.

Regardless of NOAA’s ham-handed recent decision to not allow video to be shown once it made orbit, it was SpaceX’s choice to abruptly end their webcast immediately, not NOAA. 

Rather than keep it going to provide live commentary as to the successful deployments of the satellites. So the ending of the webcast was 100% on SpaceX.

 I suspect it was more along the lines of some officials at SpaceX having a “snit” about the NOAA orbital video thing, in retaliation choosing to end the webcast abruptly and falsely blame NOAA for the abrupt ending, to cause a public reaction against NOAA.

But SpaceX was doing the public a dis-service by ending the webcast rather than continue on to report the deployments of all the satellites without showing onboard video. Their webcasts often go long long stretches without any onboard video anyway, computer orbital plots and background music with no commentary until a final burn 20-40 minutes later or other deployment events long after final shutdown.

They announced the satellite deployments on Twitter as they happened anyway. It really wouldn't have made much difference as seeing hardware in space is what people are watching the webcast for, and doing something despite not having the license to do it is just acting for trouble.

[vaporcobra]

Maybe that's the other half. The better half! The half that did not smash into the ocean. No one has mentioned whether or not it soft landed. But then, no one has mentioned it being instrumented/equipt to soft-land either.

Webcast mentioned that only one half would attempt recovery So that pretty much precludes two attempts, unless SpaceX made a massive error in their coverage. And I can confirm that the PAZ half is elsewhere, so not some odd testing with that half.

[aero]

Maybe that's the other half. The better half! The half that did not smash into the ocean. No one has mentioned whether or not it soft landed. But then, no one has mentioned it being instrumented/equipt to soft-land either.

Webcast mentioned that only one half would attempt recovery So that pretty much precludes two attempts, unless SpaceX made a massive error in their coverage. And I can confirm that the PAZ half is elsewhere, so not some odd testing with that half.

Probably, but it is not all cut and dried. Just what constitutes an attempted recovery. Splitting hairs maybe but couldn't "attempt recovery" mean every step of recovery including catching it in the net? In that case, we know that they only have one net but it doesn't mean that they only have one parachute.

[su27k]

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

Selectivity doesn't matter in this case, as discussed earlier SpaceX is pretty much the only US launch company who provides on orbit live stream, the only exception is when ULA launches a commercial LEO payload (which is maybe once a few years), so the enforcement of this rule would have disproportionate impact on SpaceX alone no matter what. The best thing we can hope for is they can get a live stream license quickly and painlessly.

[vaporcobra]

Hmmmmmmmmm. Just thought about the sheer amount of time between separation and apparent touchdown. Assuming the fairings separated at 14:16 UTC and landed (per Musk's tweet at 15:43 UTC) and 15:48 UTC - separating at 110km, that would put the average vertical velocity at no more than 25 m/s, which means that it must be sailing in the atmosphere for like ~80+ minutes of that time to counteract the fact that it's traveling ~2.3 KILOMETER per second at separation.

Perhaps I did my math wrong (strong possibility), or perhaps Musk's tweet was sent without internet access and only posted once he had a connection again (unlikely).

[whitelancer64]

Hmmmmmmmmm. Just thought about the sheer amount of time between separation and apparent touchdown. Assuming the fairings separated at 14:16 UTC and landed (per Musk's tweet at 15:43 UTC) and 15:48 UTC - separating at 110km, that would put the average vertical velocity at no more than 25 m/s, which means that it must be sailing in the atmosphere for like ~80+ minutes of that time to counteract the fact that it's traveling ~2.3 KILOMETER per second at separation.

Perhaps I did my math wrong (strong possibility), or perhaps Musk's tweet was sent without internet access and only posted once he had a connection again (unlikely).

Your fairing landing time is an hour off. Fairing landing was at 14:48 (ish) UTC

Elon Musk's tweet was at 7:43 am PST which is 14:43 UST

[sanman]

So they managed to recover the fairing after all, after it landed in the water?

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-recovers-fairing-half-mr-steven-clawboat-iridium-launch/

[vaporcobra]

So they managed to recover the fairing after all, after it landed in the water?

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-recovers-fairing-half-mr-steven-clawboat-iridium-launch/

That picture is from Elon's Instagram, just after PAZ. Just an example of what this fairing likely did, too. Posted this article in the updates thread, BTW

[vaporcobra]

Too bad, and you can view sea water sloshing inside.

Perhaps the perfect drop test article if they managed to get it out of the water structurally intact.