|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NOAA VIDEO FOR YOU
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 From above: 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. 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. This is bull**** on the face of it. There is no way that a wide field GoPro camera (the cameras SpaceX typically uses for this sort of thing) could ever have the resolution necessary to cause any "national securty" damage. It's curious that all previous Iridium launches were allowed to stream live through all 10 satellites being deployed. Me thinks that the Starman "incident" put a bug up some middle level NOAA manager's butt. 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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NOAA VIDEO FOR YOU
On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 11:01:44 AM UTC-4, 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 From above: 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. 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. This is bull**** on the face of it. There is no way that a wide field GoPro camera (the cameras SpaceX typically uses for this sort of thing) could ever have the resolution necessary to cause any "national securty" damage. It's curious that all previous Iridium launches were allowed to stream live through all 10 satellites being deployed. Me thinks that the Starman "incident" put a bug up some middle level NOAA manager's butt. 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. What was the Starman Incident? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NOAA VIDEO FOR YOU
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
NOAA VIDEO FOR YOU
Jeff Findley wrote on Sun, 1 Apr 2018
19:20:39 -0400: In article , says... I suspect this dates back to the days where USA government controlled technology to ensure its military had the best (thinking only USA could produce superior tech such as encryption). But an "rights" basis, I suspect such NOAA rules would be struck down at an international tribunal since no single country owns the rights to the Earth and can't prevent taking pictures of it. Bull****. The US has jurisdiction over what its citizens, and its corporations, do in space. They're well within their rights here, except for the bit where the cameras are so low resolution (in terms of pixel size on the surface of the earth) that it's laughable. In point of fact, there used to be a (fairly course) resolution limit for commercially available imagery; something like 10 meters. Everyone pretty much followed the US mandate (since we owned most of the commercial imaging satellites) until the French launched SPOT image. It did better than 10 meters and to add insult to injury the French started selling some of their military imagery. The US yelled for a while, but the allowed resolution eventually came down. I think it's down around half a meter to one meter now. -- "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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
NOAA VIDEO FOR YOU
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
NOAA VIDEO FOR YOU
JF Mezei wrote on Sun, 1 Apr 2018
20:09:35 -0400: On 2018-04-01 19:20, Jeff Findley wrote: I know it's April 1st, but no, that's bull****. NOAA is the agency in charge of issuing permits for earth observation satellites. This has nothing to do with those idiot flat earthers. But if I I am a Singapore company launching a satellite from Kouru on an Arianne, why do I need a permit from a US bureaucracy (NOAA) to have a camera on my satellite? Once I get orbital slot from the UN agency (forget its name), and the spectrum for the uplinks, why should a country have a say on what I do with the satellite? When the USA sent the Shuttle STRM mission, did it need permission from every nation in the world to "radar" all of the ground on the planet? When an astronaut on the ISS takes a picture while over Italy, does he need permission from Italy to take that picture? We were talking about a US company (SpaceX) launching from the US. Bull****. The US has jurisdiction over what its citizens, and its corporations, do in space. As it did with encryption, preventing export of US built encryption because us military felt US encryption couldn't be beat. The US military has nothing to do with that. It seems your ignorance knows no bounds. It appears to me that this NOAA rule is anachronistic and has been rendered laughable with advancement of commercial launches, satelite imagery that has become "open" with Google and others. Google doesn't take satellite imagery. You might want to look up who the primary source of commercial imagery is. except for the bit where the cameras are so low resolution (in terms of pixel size on the surface of the earth) that it's laughable. As it was explained to me here, stage IIs have finite lifetime after which, they are dead. inert. In today's world, this is not considered a "satellite" even though in the 1950s cold war era, early surveillance satellite would go up, take pictures and fall back after an orbit or two so the analogue film could be recovered and developped. And those image likely had resolutions comparable to what a GoPro can do today. It's still a satellite until it comes down. But in today's standards, you would only call something a "satellite" if it remained active for at least a few months if not years. Bull****. -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
NOAA VIDEO FOR YOU
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. But agreed on the face of it, it is BS. But we've been through this territory before vis-v-vis ITAR and NASA's NTRS, which had to be swept. The law should be made more specific. But it will, as they say, require an act of Congress to fix unless it's purely an administrative regulation. Suprised it is NOAA rather than NASA or NRO that enforces this one. I guess because NOAA is part of the Dept. of Commerce? Dave |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
NOAA VIDEO FOR YOU
On 4/2/2018 3:22 PM, David Spain wrote:
Suprised it is NOAA rather than NASA or NRO that enforces this one. I guess because NOAA is part of the Dept. of Commerce? Can't resist this wonderful opportunity for the snide remark... "Isn't this issue a bit over the head of NOAA?" *ahem* Dave |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
NOAA VIDEO FOR YOU
In article , says...
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. They can only enforce US laws against US corporations. In other words, any satellite owned and operated by a US company that has a camera on it that takes a picture of earth must apply for the proper earth observation permit. 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. The concept of "airspace" doesn't legally apply for satellites that are in earth orbit. The US deliberately set the precedent when we did NOT protest Sputnik overflying the US while in orbit. But agreed on the face of it, it is BS. But we've been through this territory before vis-v-vis ITAR and NASA's NTRS, which had to be swept. The law should be made more specific. But it will, as they say, require an act of Congress to fix unless it's purely an administrative regulation. Suprised it is NOAA rather than NASA or NRO that enforces this one. I guess because NOAA is part of the Dept. of Commerce? 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. 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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 03:41 AM |
Does somebody at NOAA finally get it? | Michael Kent | Policy | 1 | March 23rd 06 05:00 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 04:04 PM |