SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the unlicensed-pixels-prove-the-earth-is-flat dept.
During a recent SpaceX launch for Iridium, the live coverage of the mission was cut off early, with the host pointing to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) restrictions on launches that don't obtain a license. While SpaceX may have been breaking the law on previous missions that it had broadcasted without obtaining a license, it appears that nobody at NOAA realized until the high-profile maiden launch of Falcon Heavy. However, there is also a dispute over whether NOAA approached SpaceX about the issue or SpaceX voluntarily asked for a license:
NOAA had recently told the company to get a license for the cameras on the rocket, SpaceX said after the launch. The reason? The cameras take video of the Earth from orbit, and NOAA regulates imagery of Earth taken from space, thanks to a 26-year-old law. However, this was the first time SpaceX needed to get a license for its cameras. SpaceX filed a license application just four days before the launch, but NOAA couldn't approve the use of the cameras in time. (Reviews can take up to 120 days, NOAA says.) And so there was a blackout when the Falcon 9 reached orbit.
What changed? SpaceX and other rocket companies have been livestreaming their launches from orbit for years now, and practically all show Earth in the background. Well, it's possible that SpaceX may be in NOAA's crosshairs because of the company's recent Falcon Heavy launch and famous Starman livestream. In February, SpaceX aired live footage of SpaceX CEO Elon Musk's Tesla in space for hours, with Earth prominently featured in the background. It got massive amounts of attention — and that may have triggered NOAA to reach out to SpaceX, requiring the company to get a license for its cameras, according to a report from SpacePolicyOnline.com.
[...] There's still some confusion around the livestream saga, though. NOAA claims that SpaceX was the one to reach out to the agency about getting a license, not the other way around. "It was SpaceX that came to us," Tahara Dawkins, the director of NOAA's Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs Office said at a meeting Tuesday, according to Space News. "It wasn't NOAA that went out to them and said, 'Hey, stop, you're going to need a license.'" SpaceX disagrees. A company spokesperson, speaking on background, says it only filed an application after NOAA said the cameras qualified as a "remote sensing space system" and needed a license. (We asked NOAA for further clarification and will update the story if we hear back.)
Plus, neither NOAA nor SpaceX will admit that the Falcon Heavy launch was what started this chain of events, but Weeden argues it's the likeliest catalyst. "Starman probably attracted so much attention that someone at NOAA or someone at SpaceX realized they may have crossed that threshold to start thinking about that license," he says. When asked during Tuesday's meeting if SpaceX had broken the law with its past broadcasts from space, NOAA's Dawkins said "she would not know without looking specifically at what took place," according to SpacePolicyOnline.com.
SpaceX says it doesn't need to obtain a license for NASA missions, such as the recent CRS-14 mission to the International Space Station. SpaceNews notes that the American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act would allow the Secretary of Commerce to waive licensing of some remote sensing systems.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bob_super on Friday April 06 2018, @07:32PM (19 children)
SpaceX is obviously not selling those pictures. Their only profit is from the advertising they provide. You could easily argue that they don't compete with the people who do pay a license, and provide high-quality customer imagery.
> NOAA regulates imagery of Earth taken from space
Why, exactly?
The fact that a US company would have to talk to the US government before taking pictures of sensitive US facilities, or any other facility that would cause a diplomatic incident, seems pretty obvious. "Talking" does not mean that the government should be able to prevent a man in space from exercising their right to take pics or describe what they see, and by extension, prevent an unmanned sat from taking pictures which do not directly "threaten national security".
Besides that, is there a a rule preventing people from taking pictures from airplanes? From high mountains? From a ladder? Do I need to ask NOAA before I look at the mountain outside my window?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2018, @07:49PM (3 children)
Well, the obvious go-to conspiracy theory is flat earth, but that gets us NASA, not NOAA. Since NOAA is involved, I think this is a prime opportunity for a weather war conspiracy theory.
Here's how my conspiracy theory is evolving. I'd like to propose a network of weather modification machines housed in pizza place basements across North America. I think we can identify which pizza places are involved by the quality of their cheese pizza. Particularly, Giordano's in Chicago would seem to be a good place to look for weather modification equipment. Their cheese pizza is quite something! It sort of like a cheesecake with pizza sauce, very delicious. Even if they won't let you into their basement, somebody who is following up on this theory will at least leave very satisfied.
It could be the case that taking too many images of Earth from orbit might reveal how weather machines are causing the drought in South Africa, especially if the one in Giordano's basement is powerful enough.
There's one thing I'm not certain about when it comes to weather war conspiracies. The weather war is underutilized, so I think we have fresh territory to fill in here. Do all weather war theories need a reference to Operation Jade Helm? I really want to go in the direction of pizza place basements, but I'm going to have to make quite a leap to connect that to Jade Helm. Ideas?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JNCF on Friday April 06 2018, @08:14PM (2 children)
Every weather war conspiracy should include this quote:
--Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 28, 1997 [archive.is]
Nevermind the context, this particular sentence was phrased in the present tense! Also bring up Bernard Eastlund's patents. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday April 06 2018, @10:06PM (1 child)
Nevermind the context?
The man was speaking about mere fears and false scare of a threat that distract agencies from doing their jobs.
Never mind the context indeed!!! You seem particularly good at that.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday April 07 2018, @12:49AM
That's what they want you to think.
---
It seems he's in a good company this time. Speaking [soylentnews.org] of [soylentnews.org] context [xkcd.com]:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Friday April 06 2018, @07:56PM (5 children)
The license isn't about economic benefit.
The law that the requirement derives from was concerned about spying, or revealing sensitive sites at a resolution sufficient to give an enemy a tactical advantage.
Like most laws, it was written in such an absolutist way that it could be extended to cover anything in space.
Of course the government already realizes this is stupid, and the Russians aren't going to apply for a license, nor tell anyone what resolution they can achieve.
So the government mandates keeping super secret things indoors or covered up. They didn't even bother to protest when Google captured pictures of a Sub's super secret propellers in drydock at Bangor sub base, because that horse was already out of the barn.
This is what makes this so laughable. The cams SpaceX uses never reveal enough detail to be of value for spying.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Friday April 06 2018, @08:11PM (2 children)
99% of what people think of as "satellite imagery" is actually taken by low flying planes. The military is pretty good at keeping those out of the sensitive areas, but if you put a good super-telephoto lens on a good 16MP imager and pointed it at the wrong place from LEO (on a day without clouds...), you might get something akin to looking out the window of a Cessna at 1000' with an ordinary cell-phone camera.
This particular flap - yeah, it's very believable that it's a matter of somebody somewhere deciding that they didn't like pictures of some guy's old convertible with an Astronaut mannequin in it, and that somebody happened to know something about an old law...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 07 2018, @02:45AM (1 child)
SpaceX makes United Launch Alliance look really boring and most uncool. You can see the motive here. United Launch Alliance thus reminds NOAA, perhaps indirectly via a member of congress, that there is a law that is supposed to be enforced.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Saturday April 07 2018, @06:50AM
Maybe. That still leaves the funny dispute over the basic fact of who approached who.
The archaic law here is almost certainly going to be changed in SpaceX's favor. NOAA employees probably didn't appreciate whatever flak they got over this from SpaceX fanbois, and are eager to see the issue go away forever. If this was petty harassment on ULA's part, it's not very effective. They need to do things to kill/jail/disgrace (#MeToo sex scandal) Elon Musk, or set the company's plans back by years, possibly via sabotage [spacenews.com]. Because when BFR launches, ULA is going to look like a bunch of obsolete chumps, and even Congressional pork or their Vulcan rocket won't be able to save them from $100-300/kg launch costs.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday April 07 2018, @12:58AM (1 child)
I learned this from an Air Force cyber command recruitment video
Cell phones have a maintenance mode that turns on the microphone without the users knowledge
I'm not just paranoid: this was demonstrated at black hat
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday April 07 2018, @03:34AM
Smart phones are also forbidden on some military bases, because they all have cameras.
If you can find a smart phone without a camera, most bases have no problem with cell phones or smart phones.
I know a lot of people who work in a couple secret naval bases that gravitate to a couple models of candybar style phones with no camera. They leave their smart phone at home.
And at black hat, they demonstrated turning on the mic in a phone they had physical access to. Its sort of a different thing.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Friday April 06 2018, @08:06PM (1 child)
Caution: Bad car analogy ahead.
I worked with a group to get a vital signs monitor put on an Indy 500 driver (rookie, crashed on the first lap), but our PR guys were blocked by the track doctor, basically without reason. They managed to get him to talk to me (representing a non-PR techie perspective) and I finally got him to tell his story... seems that a couple of years earlier some group had put pulse oximetry on a driver (without permission) and went and blabbed to the press after the race "Well, no wonder they crash, they're desaturating deeply in the corners, no oxygen to the brain, miracle they don't crash more!" which, of course, is utter B.S. the pulse ox can't read accurately with all the vibration, and even if it did (which it didn't), what it reads on the periphery has f-all to do with what's getting to the brain, I explained to him how we had patented algorithms to reduce false alarms in pulse-ox and how the industry revolves around always showing a reading, even if it is complete fabrication, etc. and after he came to the conclusion that we're not a bunch of idiots out to sensationalize the race, but rather a bunch of tech nerds trying to show how tough our gear is, he gave us a pass.
So - as for NOAA and earth imagery - of course it's a law meant to give the U.S. government official snooping rights in any and all space sourced imagery, but... in there somewhere is likely a rational basis as to the quality and interpretation of the imagery, ensuring for example that Greenpeace doesn't launch a bird and convince half the world that the mid-Atlantic ridge is boiling, etc.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by fritsd on Saturday April 07 2018, @11:46AM
OMG! The mid-Atlantic ridge is boiling!
And the Americans are trying to prevent Greenpeace from finding out and publishing proof of the truth!
Somebody, quick, e-mail Björk and her 300 000 compatriots!
.
.
(How did I do? Alex Jones material yet? Or should I just not bother, and go live in a hut on Surtsey [wikipedia.org]?)
(Score: 1, Redundant) by EvilSS on Friday April 06 2018, @08:43PM (5 children)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by frojack on Friday April 06 2018, @10:10PM (4 children)
You're like the 4th guy that mentioned flat earth.
Don't you think its time to give it a rest?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2018, @10:55PM (1 child)
In order for it to be considered a conspiracy someone has to believe it.
(Score: 3, Touché) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Saturday April 07 2018, @03:16AM
Or someone has to present the idea that someone else believes it.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Saturday April 07 2018, @03:02AM
(Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Sunday April 08 2018, @11:49PM
Oh yes, I definitely think that joke is FLAT-LINING....
*sips coffee*
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 07 2018, @08:56AM
.... in the USA. I don't suppose the Russians, Chinese, French, Indians or anyone else firing things up into the air give a damn what NOAA says. Why is it that US reporting always thinks that they rule the world? US laws stop at the borders of US territory, unless other nations have agreed otherwise.