A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NOAA VIDEO FOR YOU



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 3rd 18, 08:12 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default NOAA VIDEO FOR YOU

David Spain wrote on Mon, 2 Apr 2018 15:22:08
-0400:

On 3/31/2018 11:01 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
I was watching the SpaceX launch of 10 more Iridium satellites yesterday
and they cut the live feed near the end of the 2nd stage's first burn,
saying something about NOAA restrictions preventing them from continuing
the broadcast. I was like WTF?

As usual, Eric Berger came through with a story on this:

NOAA VIDEO FOR YOU ?
NOAA just prevented SpaceX from showing its rocket in orbit
"SpaceX will be intentionally ending live video coverage of the 2nd
stage."
ERIC BERGER - 3/30/2018, 12:52 PM
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...-a-rocket-but-
noaa-prevented-some-of-it-from-being-shown/

NOAA's response:
http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/no...-broadcast-of-
spacex-iridium-5-launch


What's interesting to me is what if that GoPro camera is on the
satellite not the 2nd stage? Then seems like US restrictions might only
apply when the carriage is still over US airspace? How can NOAA enforce
regulations against foreign sat carriers that are already in orbit?
You'd get "good" pictures until that last sat was ejected.

Yes it's a US rocket being launched by a US corporation, but the
satellite as often as not is non-US and an orbit by definition is
outside US airspace. Seems like it then becomes treaty obligation time
to me rather than US code.


If it's on a US launcher, US code applies.


--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
  #12  
Old April 3rd 18, 08:23 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default NOAA VIDEO FOR YOU

JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 3 Apr 2018
01:41:06 -0400:

On 2018-04-02 20:34, Jeff Findley wrote:

From what I understand, the rule dates back to the LANDSAT days. No
doubt it was originally intended to make it harder for "startups" to get
into the earth observation business, which is *big* business. The
satellite views in all of those online maps were paid for.


But the rule wasn't intended as a 'barrier to entry' so much as a
'barrier to high resolution'.


Does NOAA have some sort of authority/monopoly on earth observation
satellites for weather? (aka: ability to prevent a competitor in
satelite based weather observations) ? The requirement for permit might
be to ensure nobody launches competing satellites?


I don't think anyone gives a **** about weather observation.


I am just trying to understand why this rule was created and still exists.


Because high resolution satellite imagery is MILITARILY USEFUL and
they wanted to prevent high resolution commercial imagery. That ship
has largely sailed and you can now buy commercial georegistered
imagery as good as half-meter resolution. The US government can get
imagery at higher resolutions (still). For example, commercial Geoeye
satellites are capable of resolutions at least down to 41cm. However,
their operating license prohibits selling anything better than 50cm to
anyone but the US government (which is why the rule exists).


--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
  #13  
Old April 3rd 18, 11:02 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default NOAA VIDEO FOR YOU

In article ,
says...

JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 3 Apr 2018
01:41:06 -0400:

On 2018-04-02 20:34, Jeff Findley wrote:

From what I understand, the rule dates back to the LANDSAT days. No
doubt it was originally intended to make it harder for "startups" to get
into the earth observation business, which is *big* business. The
satellite views in all of those online maps were paid for.


But the rule wasn't intended as a 'barrier to entry' so much as a
'barrier to high resolution'.


snip


I am just trying to understand why this rule was created and still exists.


Because high resolution satellite imagery is MILITARILY USEFUL and
they wanted to prevent high resolution commercial imagery. That ship
has largely sailed and you can now buy commercial georegistered
imagery as good as half-meter resolution. The US government can get
imagery at higher resolutions (still). For example, commercial Geoeye
satellites are capable of resolutions at least down to 41cm. However,
their operating license prohibits selling anything better than 50cm to
anyone but the US government (which is why the rule exists).


Which is why applying the rule to get a permit to the GoPro cameras
mounted on a Falcon upper stage is stupid. The rule has an exception
for "hand held" cameras which can have much higher resolution than the
GoPros (e.g. the DSLR cameras and lenses on ISS when they are pointed at
the earth).

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #14  
Old April 3rd 18, 02:55 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default NOAA VIDEO FOR YOU

JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 3 Apr 2018
03:51:00 -0400:

On 2018-04-03 03:23, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Because high resolution satellite imagery is MILITARILY USEFUL


So NOAA administers as a deceptive way so USA doesn't have to admit it
is a military restriction?


What's deceptive about it?


At least ITAR, encryption regulations, GPS SA degradation were directly
blamed on military.


INCORRECTLY blamed, if so, since the US military has nothing to do
with what's on the ITAR list.


When US company wants an orbital slot for a satellite, who do they go
to? Is there a US body such as NOAA that acts as the UN representative
in USA? (as I recall, orbital slots are registered/allocated by a UN
body, right?)


I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure the only 'controlled' slots are
those at GEO. Those were all allocated by COUNTRY, so what folks
mostly do is go to folks like Tonga and 'buy' their GEO slots.


Do launchers need to get an orbital slot for their stage2 which stays up
for quite a while?


Nope.


Or do they just get the launch permits (FAA stuff such as closing
airspace and water areas near launch area) and assume that their
customer (satellite onwer) has done all the paperwork for the orbit?


If the launch is to GEO, it's generally on the owner of the satellite
to procure the orbital 'slot'.


And in the case of starman, since it was not intended for earth orbit,
would they have needed an orbital slot? Or just launch permit with goal
of putting payload in escape trajectory?


It wasn't in GEO.


--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
  #15  
Old April 3rd 18, 02:57 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default NOAA VIDEO FOR YOU

Jeff Findley wrote on Tue, 3 Apr 2018
06:02:11 -0400:

In article ,
says...

Because high resolution satellite imagery is MILITARILY USEFUL and
they wanted to prevent high resolution commercial imagery. That ship
has largely sailed and you can now buy commercial georegistered
imagery as good as half-meter resolution. The US government can get
imagery at higher resolutions (still). For example, commercial Geoeye
satellites are capable of resolutions at least down to 41cm. However,
their operating license prohibits selling anything better than 50cm to
anyone but the US government (which is why the rule exists).


Which is why applying the rule to get a permit to the GoPro cameras
mounted on a Falcon upper stage is stupid. The rule has an exception
for "hand held" cameras which can have much higher resolution than the
GoPros (e.g. the DSLR cameras and lenses on ISS when they are pointed at
the earth).


If they didn't occasionally result in stupid things they wouldn't be
'regulations'...

I wonder what NOAA would do if the camera mount was crafted as an
artificial hand, so as to make the camera 'hand held'?


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Video sequential video recordings after Apollo 11 - the actual way it happened. J Waggoner History 0 June 23rd 08 06:40 AM
Does somebody at NOAA finally get it? Thomas Lee Elifritz Policy 197 March 24th 06 04:41 AM
Does somebody at NOAA finally get it? Michael Kent Policy 1 March 23rd 06 06:00 AM
NOAA 808 sunspot Daniele Gasparri Amateur Astronomy 0 September 14th 05 01:31 PM
NOAA 7 tumbling William R. Thompson Satellites 2 February 13th 04 05:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.