from the testing-anti-satellite-technology dept.
A startup called Swarm Technologies has had its authorization for an upcoming satellite launch revoked by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) after it flew four satellites on an Indian rocket without receiving authorization from the FCC:
On 12 January, a Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) rocket blasted off from India's eastern coast. While its primary cargo was a large Indian mapping satellite, dozens of secondary CubeSats from other countries travelled along with it. Seattle-based Planetary Resources supplied a spacecraft that will test prospecting tools for future asteroid miners, Canadian company Telesat launched a broadband communications satellite, and a British Earth-observation mission called Carbonite will capture high-definition video of the planet's surface.
Also on board were four small satellites that probably should not have been there. SpaceBee-1, 2, 3, and 4 were briefly described by the Indian space agency ISRO as "two-way satellite communications and data relay" devices from the United States. No operator was specified, and only ISRO publicly noted that they successfully reached orbit the same day.
[...] The only problem is, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had dismissed Swarm's application for its experimental satellites a month earlier, on safety grounds. The FCC is responsible for regulating commercial satellites, including minimizing the chance of accidents in space. It feared that the four SpaceBees now orbiting the Earth would pose an unacceptable collision risk for other spacecraft. If confirmed, this would be the first ever unauthorized launch of commercial satellites.
On Wednesday, the FCC sent Swarm a letter revoking its authorization for a follow-up mission with four more satellites, due to launch next month. A pending application for a large market trial of Swarm's system with two Fortune 100 companies could also be in jeopardy.
The concept uses satellites to send Internet of Things (IoT) device data to the Internet. Solar-powered gateways would collect data from nearby IoT devices, and beam it to a SpaceBEE satellite using VHF radio. The data would then be beamed down to Internet-connected ground stations.
The company was denied approval to launch 10 cm × 10 cm × 2.8 cm sized SpaceBEEs due to the craft being too small to reliably track using the United States Space Surveillance Network.
Previously: India Launches 31 Satellites, Puts Cartosat-2 Into Orbit
Related Stories
India on Friday deployed a remote sensing Cartosat and 30 other satellites, including 28 from six nations into the earth's orbit after a copybook launch from its spaceport here. The 44.4-metre tall Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV-C40) roared into a clear sky after a perfect lift-off at 9.29 a.m. following a 28-hour countdown. The 320-tonne rocket would eject the satellites one-by-one and deploy them into the earth's lower orbit 17 minutes and 18 seconds after the lift-off.
Of the 31 satellites, three are Indian and the rest are from Canada, Finland, France, South Korea, UK and the US.
INDIA LAUNCHES 31 SATELLITES, PUTS CARTOSAT-2 INTO ORBIT
[Also Covered By]:
ISRO's 42nd PSLV successfully puts 31 satellites in orbit
PSLV-C40/Cartosat-2 Series Satellite Mission
[YouTube Video]: The Launch of PSLV-C40 / Cartosat-2 Series Satellite
Related: PicSat Mission to Observe Beta Pictoris for Exoplanet Transit
FCC fines Swarm Technologies $900K over unauthorized satellite launch
Back in March came the surprising news that a satellite communications company still more or less in stealth mode had launched several tiny craft into orbit — against the explicit instructions of the FCC. The company, Swarm Technologies, now faces a $900,000 penalty from the agency, as well as extra oversight of its continuing operations.
[...] Unfortunately, the units are so small — about a quarter the size of a standard cubesat, which is already quite tiny — that the FCC felt they would be too difficult to track, and did not approve the launch.
Swarm, perhaps thinking it better to ask forgiveness than file the paperwork for permission, launched anyway in January aboard India's PSLV-C40, which carried more than a dozen other passengers to space as well. (I asked Swarm and the launch provider, Spaceflight, at the time for comment but never heard back.) The FCC obviously didn't like this, and began an investigation shortly afterwards.
Slap on the wrist?
Previously: India Launches 31 Satellites, Puts Cartosat-2 Into Orbit
FCC Accuses Startup of Unauthorized Launch of Commercial Satellites
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 12 2018, @06:33AM (3 children)
Plenty of comets that size are coming down every day without the FCC stamp of approval. Just more junk on the pile as far as the cosmos or the globe are concerned.
(Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Monday March 12 2018, @08:12AM
And none of them stays in Earth's orbit even for a minute.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 12 2018, @02:21PM (1 child)
The orbit around the Earth has been getting increasingly crowded over the last few decades and even more so when the Chinese blew up that satellite with their anti-satelllite weapon.
Until we find some efficient way of cleaning up the orbit, there's going to be problems like this. Unfortunately, it can take quite some time for satellites to fall out of orbit if they aren't purposefully moved to do so.
And as mentioned, those other things are only in our orbit for a short period of time, there's some risk of them hitting other objects while they're in our orbit, but the don't accumulate.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Monday March 12 2018, @04:29PM
> even more so when the Chinese blew up that satellite with their anti-satelllite weapon
Yes, those evil Chinese. Clearly the only one to create debris in space:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford [wikipedia.org]
Shall we also discuss the upcoming sat swarms including thousands of small sats from SpaceX and a few competitors?
Just because some private US company decided not to file the right paperwork to launch 4 nanosats from India doesn't exactly make them the greatest threat to sats everywhere. It's a good thing that they don't get away with it, but let's not be overly dramatic
(Score: 3, Insightful) by archfeld on Monday March 12 2018, @06:41AM (2 children)
Ajit Pai and the US FCC, having solved internet neutrality, cable discrimination and every other problem on their plate locally have now decided that their authority extends internationally to regulating satellite launches in foreign countries. Good to know that the parasites have our best interest in hand internationally as well as ensuring that local competition in the domestic market has been thoroughly lobotomized. Isn't it great to be alive today....
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 5, Informative) by tonyPick on Monday March 12 2018, @06:57AM
It's an American company - under the Outer Space Treaty the US Government is responsible for US companies that launch satellites (and US taxpayers get to foot the bill to fix things in the event of US company screw ups), and the FCC is the body that gets involved because the sats want to talk to the ground and that's something the FCC has to get involved in anyway since they get to say what goes on there.
The details get complicated (The ITU get involved for some things, and there's a bunch of international agreements, and an open question about this being something a centralised body should regulate AIUI), but the idea the FCC get involved here is not some arbitrary overreach that Ajit Pai decided he wanted the FCC to get involved in: https://www.fcc.gov/general/international-bureau-satellite-division [fcc.gov]
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Monday March 12 2018, @08:18AM
Cry as much as you want, that's the international law for space [gizmodo.com.au]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday March 12 2018, @08:10AM (15 children)
They really had two choices: (1) make their satellites larger; a 10cm cube is still pretty tiny, or (2) piss off the regulatory agency responsible for their company's entire future. So, naturally, they chose (2).
As I understand it, the US tracks satellites for everyone, so pretty much everyone registers their planned launches with the US. This means that even moving abroad is unlikely to help: If the FCC says "no satellites from this untrustworthy company", then they can all go back to playing in mom's basement.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday March 12 2018, @08:37AM (12 children)
What are the chances that this thing was on the collision course to a secret spy satellite and FCC simply lied that it is too small? *puts on tinfoil hat*
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday March 12 2018, @08:43AM (11 children)
Pretty small, I'd say. Unless the satellites were intentionally set onto such an orbit, of course; but that would require a few more tin foil hats to believe.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Monday March 12 2018, @08:57AM (10 children)
That will be 10% more expensive but, on the flipside, it will be "American aluminum foil", not any kind of aluminium foil.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 12 2018, @11:54AM (9 children)
I really want political commentary on commodity trade tariffs from someone who can't tell the difference between tin and aluminum.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday March 12 2018, @12:17PM (8 children)
I'd suggest you to inform yourself before:
- on the availability of the actual tinfoil [wikipedia.org]
- the professionals always work with Al foiil [zapatopi.net] - thinking that tinfoil is better is a plot of the government to send you on an expensive wild goose chase after pure tin foil and ruin you financially in the process;
- of course, the govt conspirators will have you believe that Al-foil hats are actually helping them steal your thoughts better [rationalwiki.org]. If you give course to their suggestion, you'll remain absolutely unprotected (well, except your guns, but the givt does worry too much about them).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday March 12 2018, @12:44PM (7 children)
Yes but if I were to wear an aluminum foil I would be such professional as to be part of a THINK TANK and instead of soylentnews I would be BOMBARDING my theories onto the REAL WORLD! :)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 12 2018, @12:57PM (3 children)
No think tank membership is complete without the MindGuard for Linux [zapatopi.net].
Sure, projecting the mind is important, but so it is protecting it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday March 12 2018, @02:58PM (2 children)
What is this? I already feel like I need to download it. May be port it to linux v> 3.0
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 12 2018, @05:19PM (1 child)
It is much to late:
If you didn't get in on the ground floor, you'll have to gut your computer to remove all the copper. That really cool Thermaltake all-copper heatsink? Uh-huh - it's part of the conspiracy.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday March 12 2018, @06:46PM
Hmm.... fortunately I have a system circa 1997 lying around somewhere. Let me see how to measure its copper content...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 12 2018, @05:07PM (2 children)
The joke is on you, Cigarguy. There is no real world. You are in the Matrix.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday March 12 2018, @06:44PM (1 child)
But is it a real matrix?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 12 2018, @07:45PM
Some guy, determined to leave town got to the edge of town, and the road ended. Let me find that . . .
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/ [imdb.com]
At the end of the movie, you're left wondering how many levels there really are. Maybe the entire universe is just a simulation.
(Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Monday March 12 2018, @01:37PM
3) Appeal the decision. Obvious the paper stamping reason has nothing to do with reality, the media seems to be going to great effort not to point out that 10 cm picosat is a class of cubesat satellites. Someone's pissed off at them and this is the manufactured hurdle. There are plenty of slightly larger cubesats at higher altitudes and some picosat launches that were not mysteriously legally blocked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CubeSats [wikipedia.org]
4) Lower orbit (admittedly lower orbital lifetime). Fine, we'll dump 'em at a low altitude, you can radar zap them for testing purposes, they'll deorbit in a short amount of time. The PSLV-C40 dumped most of the satellites at a high orbit, then burned fuel to go to a lower orbit to dump these, probably for that reason; possibly doesn't have enough fuel to controllably go lower?
If that brochure is correct, that's the launcher that also launched FOX-1D aka AO-92 a ham radio satellite of similar size and performance. Kinda odd FOX-1D (and of course FOX-1A it was mostly a clone of) were permitted but arbitrarily not this one. Someone didn't pay off the right someone.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Monday March 12 2018, @06:01PM
It feels like this is the right place to point out that dozens of 10cm^3 1U cubesats have been launched and are on orbit now and are tracked. The FCC rejected the request because this company's kit is 10cm x10cm x3cm, much thinner than a cubesat. There is every reason to believe the request would have been approved if it had been in a standard 1U cubesat form factor.
In freedom units 10 x 10 x 3 cm is roughly 4 x 4 x 1 1/4 inches.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 12 2018, @08:18AM (7 children)
The FCC ought to handle transmissions over US-controlled areas. For US operators, the FCC also should control transmissions over the high seas.
The FCC shouldn't give a damn about collisions. That could rightly go to the Air Force, to NASA, or to the FAA. In this case however, India ought to be in change. The rocket launched from Indian territory.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 12 2018, @08:40AM (1 child)
The whole developed and developing world including the FCC should care about collisions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 12 2018, @09:57AM
Oil tankers have radios on them too, so that puts them under FCC jurisdiction, and thus the FCC should certify the training of the ship crews and the construction of the ship hulls???
No. That is absurd. The FCC is the Federal Communications Commission. The original and most legitimate purpose is radio frequency spectrum allocation, including power levels. All the extra stuff, like the internet, is a stretch. Collisions are simply absurd for the FCC to be dealing with.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday March 12 2018, @08:51AM (3 children)
No matter where the responsibility would go, what the company did is illegal by international law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Bot on Monday March 12 2018, @10:59AM (2 children)
But, is the FCC an international court? no? tasked by one? no? then they are not judging, they are boycotting. The stupid IoT sky polluters will keep using India rockets.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday March 12 2018, @11:19AM (1 child)
Tasked by the US federal government, following the international accords in regards with sapece.
So, while not directly tasked by an international court (which would not have the power to specifically designate national agencies), yes they are tasked - via US govt - by the international law.
You may argue that FCC is not the best agency to carry this responsibility, but that's irrelevant to the matter at hand: there are now 4 illegal satellites in orbit.
And this after the company that own the satellites asked the delegated authority for approval and was refused.
Or... do you want to say: "Because FCC is probably not the best agency to delegate the authority for satellite approvals, any company in US can launch whatever satellites it wants?". That, Bot, would be illogical and thus unbecoming for a bot!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday March 12 2018, @01:03PM
The part after the "no?" is not valid if the answer is yes, indeed :)
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 12 2018, @02:26PM
That makes little sense. Considering that either way satellites will require FCC approval for their transmissions anyways, I see no reason to add additional red tape by involving NASA. NOAA and the FCC have more interest in what directly orbits the Earth as one uses satellites extensively for monitoring the planet and the other is responsible for managing the spectrum.