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
  #1  
Old March 31st 18, 04:01 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default 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  
Old April 1st 18, 09:08 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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?
  #4  
Old April 2nd 18, 12:20 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default NOAA VIDEO FOR YOU

In article ,
says...

On 2018-04-01 16:08,
wrote:

What was the Starman Incident?


SpaceX continued to broadcast live video from stage 2 showing its red
car in foreground and the Earth in background.

It broadcasted from high enough altitude to show that the Earth may in
fact be round instead of flat, and this is considered too controversial,
like evolution/creation, climate change etc etc.


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.

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.

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.
  #5  
Old April 2nd 18, 01:06 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default 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  
Old April 2nd 18, 01:28 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default NOAA VIDEO FOR YOU

In article ,
says...

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?


See below where I said, "US has jurisdiction over what its citizens, and
its corporations do in space".

When an astronaut on the ISS takes a picture while over Italy, does he
need permission from Italy to take that picture?


From what I understand, there is specifically an exception for "hand
held" cameras.

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. So US companies
started to buy euriopean encryption so it could be deployed in all their
offices around the world and it turned out to be equal or superior to
the US encryption. I believe iut was under Clinton that this rule was
removed when the USA realise that thsi rule hurt US companies sionce
their encryption products were undesirable because of the "no export"
rules on them.

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.


All that imagery no doubt was gathered with the proper permits, if it
was done with US satellites. And even if it wasn't, I'm sure Google
does what the government requires for images of "sensitive" sites.

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.


From what I understand the point is moot. SpaceX has the required
permits for launches going forward. Like I said originally, I'm sure
some middle level bureaucrat got a bug up his butt from watching the
several hours of Starman footage. SpaceX responded with snark by
mentioning NOAA when it cut off its last launch live-stream right before
2nd stage cutoff (i.e. when the 2nd stage was not yet "in orbit" and was
therefore functioning as a launch vehicle, not a satellite).

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.
  #7  
Old April 2nd 18, 03:31 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 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  
Old April 2nd 18, 08:22 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default 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  
Old April 2nd 18, 08:31 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default 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  
Old April 3rd 18, 01:34 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default 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

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 09:15 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.