Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday March 31 2018, @04:29PM   Printer-friendly
from the no-views-for-you dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

On Friday morning, SpaceX successfully launched a Falcon 9 rocket into space and later deployed 10 Iridium communications satellites into low-Earth orbit as planned. But unexpectedly for most watching, the company's webcast was precluded from showing the mission in its entirety.

At T+ 9:00 minutes, just two seconds before the rocket's second-stage engine cut off from firing, the video from space ended. The launch commentator, SpaceX engineer Michael Hammersley, explained earlier in the broadcast that "[d]ue to some restrictions from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, SpaceX will be intentionally ending live video coverage of the 2nd stage just prior to engine shutdown."

Asked about this on Friday morning, a NOAA spokesman was not aware of the situation. "I can only think it's an error," Chris Vaccaro told Ars. "I would double check with them (SpaceX)." NOAA has promised more information will be forthcoming. (4:45pm ET Update: NOAA released this statement).

We did double check with SpaceX. It was definitely an issue with NOAA, the rocket company said. Apparently NOAA recently asserted that cameras on the second stage of the Falcon 9 rocket, which SpaceX uses for engineering purposes, qualify as a remote sensing system, which are subject to NOAA's regulation. A provisional license obtained by SpaceX for Friday's launch of the Iridium-5 mission required it to end views once the second stage reached orbit.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

Related Stories

Camera-Studded Falcon Heavy Launch Blamed for NOAA's Restrictions on Livestreamed Launch Video 27 comments

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.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 31 2018, @04:36PM (2 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday March 31 2018, @04:36PM (#660876)

    Lots of suggestion out there that this is pushback for the Tesla photos...

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @04:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @04:52PM (#660879)

      Is there no end to the scope of an authoritarian's ego?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @09:11PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @09:11PM (#660944)

      NOAA doesn't care. Trump likes the stunts and the photos. There isn't going to be any pushback from the government on this one.

      Government is supposed to follow the law however, and the cameras technically qualify. Hmmm, who would point that out? There are only a few possible culprits here, and the most obvious one is United Launch Alliance. It could be Blue Origin, Orbital ATK, or any of the other minor players... but seriously it's United Launch Alliance.

  • (Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday March 31 2018, @04:47PM (7 children)

    by Bot (3902) on Saturday March 31 2018, @04:47PM (#660878) Journal

    You should regulate THE USE of remote sensing data, lest it clashes with "established science" or whatever you are afraid of. Not censor the output and let speculators/trolls/deniers have a field day.

    Unless you are trolling, then, well played.

    --
    Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @05:11PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @05:11PM (#660886)

      The NOAA thing was just a cover for either a possible flyby of the X38(48?) or whatever piece of hush hush tech the US military/CIA has in orbit. That is why NOAA punted it back to SpaceX, but SpaceX had their story in order.

      If that WASN'T true, I'm sure there would have been an issue with NOAA before now since they've launched plenty of missions that fell under US/NOAA jurisdiction previously.

      Does anyone have a citation of the regulation or law in question and either confirmation or denial of why SpaceX would be under it?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @07:32PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @07:32PM (#660928)

        Or maybe the rocket was also releasing a secret payload in addition to the Iridium satellites.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 01 2018, @12:53AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 01 2018, @12:53AM (#661014)

          Hmm, does this give us an inroads for a weather war conspiracy theory?

          • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday April 01 2018, @04:06AM

            by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Sunday April 01 2018, @04:06AM (#661050) Homepage

            I think it's more likely that any classified payloads are either satellite-killing (EMP?) or jamming satellites or ultra hi-res imaging satellites.

            The U.S. Navy's recent move to train their quartermasters in old-school navigation using the stars and sextants suggests this. Hysterical military fearmongers have referenced muh EMP taking out American power grids and frying all of your bitchin' gaming rigs but I believe it is likely that EMP and more manual methods will be used to take out enemy satellites in space during a conflict. Bye bye GPS and other SATNAV. Doppler sensors reading the bottom from the surface max out at around 1000M of depth but I have heard whispers that experimental sensors have a range for over 2000M, which from the surface means you're shit outta luck if you're sailing across open ocean. Of course any serious vessel should have a good INS but are those alone accurate enough yet for the application?

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by frojack on Saturday March 31 2018, @08:48PM

        by frojack (1554) on Saturday March 31 2018, @08:48PM (#660937) Journal

        Does anyone have a citation of the regulation

        Maybe look at the last link in TFS?
        Inside that is a link to the CFR.

        Or were you asking for someone to go there and cut and paste for you?

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 31 2018, @09:05PM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday March 31 2018, @09:05PM (#660942)

        The law is there to enforce in times of need, or want, not because it is always necessary.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday April 04 2018, @01:01PM

      by Wootery (2341) on Wednesday April 04 2018, @01:01PM (#662451)

      lest it clashes with "established science" or whatever you are afraid of

      What on Earth are you talking about?

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Virindi on Saturday March 31 2018, @04:54PM (2 children)

    by Virindi (3484) on Saturday March 31 2018, @04:54PM (#660880)

    Yet another pointless government rule "just because we can".

    If they are worried about enemies getting spy photos, they are half a century too late. Now that camera technology is so small and light, even North Korea can launch spy satellites (not that they would be great).

    It's time to eliminate this rule.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 01 2018, @07:25AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 01 2018, @07:25AM (#661074)

      We don't have enough details to conclude that yet. It's guilty-until-proven-innocent on your part. Shape up!

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday April 01 2018, @12:53PM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Sunday April 01 2018, @12:53PM (#661129) Homepage
        The null hypothesis is that rules are unneeded. And the more potent the law, the more convincing the argument for it should be.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 31 2018, @04:59PM (4 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 31 2018, @04:59PM (#660882) Journal

    These cameras are UP THERE. By "UP THERE", we aren't considering a mile or six - they are WAY UP THERE. Unless someone is consciously with malicious intent focusing on key spots on the earth, these cameras aren't going to capture details of Area 51, or Buckingham Palace, or Trump getting a blowjob on the White House lawn. Oh, sure, there are cameras good enough to do that, but are those the type of cameras being used for telemetry? I don't think so. But, again, even if the camera is good enough, why in hell would SpaceX be focused on that kind of stuff?

    Seems like it would be a hell of a lot more sane, to simply tell SpaceX where NOT TO POINT their cameras. Simple software filter could prevent the camera from ever focusing in those "top secret" areas.

    Just lame.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by zocalo on Saturday March 31 2018, @05:53PM (1 child)

      by zocalo (302) on Saturday March 31 2018, @05:53PM (#660900)
      Or just put it on a short-time delay for broadcast like they do with "live" recordings where they might need to bleep out some bad language. SpaceX can still have the live feed in real-time for their telemetry and everyone else watching gets it slightly later, then in the unlikely event that the video should happen to show a UFO or whatever the hell it is they are afraid of they can just blot it out with a few seconds of display static.

      This just seems like a really, really, lame regulation that doesn't seem like it would ever have had a practical application to me. These are relatively low-res telemetry video cameras (1080p, or maybe 4K at best), not the super high-quality still image ones used by spy satellites, or even commerical recon birds like those used DigitalGlobe, etc. I doubt the entirety of the Groom Lake (Area 51) facility [google.co.uk] is going to occupy more than a few hundred pixels at best if it should happen to cross the frame, so good luck seeing anything useful on that compared to what is already freely available.
      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @06:19PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @06:19PM (#660910)

        International Airspace.

        Hypocrisy complete. Bravo America!

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 01 2018, @02:57PM (1 child)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 01 2018, @02:57PM (#661164) Journal

      Unless someone is consciously with malicious intent focusing on key spots on the earth

      Even if they were, they'd need a lot better cameras and optics than what comes with the video that SpaceX uses.

      • (Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Sunday April 01 2018, @06:37PM

        by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 01 2018, @06:37PM (#661199) Journal
        Agreed. I wonder if the astronauts on the space station got permits for their cameras in orbit :-p

        I know this is a foreign concept to government agencies, but seriously....word it so non-security impacting use is not subject to needless restriction and administrative overhead "cameras which do not image the Earth, or are not be designed/used in a fashion that can resolve a 100 meter square object on the ground above height xxxx meters are exempted"

        (or some similar appropriate constraint)
        --
        В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
  • (Score: 5, Touché) by BsAtHome on Saturday March 31 2018, @05:27PM (1 child)

    by BsAtHome (889) on Saturday March 31 2018, @05:27PM (#660894)

    They had to shut down all cameras because the aliens were not informed about the transmission. Otherwise they would have hidden on the other side of the globe. But, in this case, a miscommunication prevented the aliens from seeking shelter from the prying camera-eyes. Therefore, SpaceX was abruptly cut-off and the aliens are again safe from discovery.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 01 2018, @12:58AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 01 2018, @12:58AM (#661015)

      I just checked with the aliens, and they're saying that it was a conversion error on NOAA's part between Earth-local 24-hour time and galactic metric time for when the launch window needed to be scheduled.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by fritsd on Saturday March 31 2018, @07:11PM (2 children)

    by fritsd (4586) on Saturday March 31 2018, @07:11PM (#660920) Journal

    Maybe it has to do with arctic sea ice cover?

    NOAA has been monitoring the extent of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice cover for years now; they draw really nice sinus waves of the extent compared to the average of the past decades.

    At the moment, the north of Greenland is getting its first morning light after the half year of polar night.

    So, you'd expect that it would be cold enough to freeze a polar bear's balls off.

    HOWEVER

    There was unusual weather the past months, where here we've had -26°C when even the most fervent winter sporter feels like it's about time to start thawing in time for Midsommar, and I've read an article in the Guardian that at that same time, the weather (note I didn't say climate) in a spot in north Greenland (i.e. where not even the Inuit bother to live) was ....

    +6°C !!!

    Arctic warming: scientists alarmed by 'crazy' temperature rises [theguardian.com]

    i.o.w. we got the polar bears' weather and they got ours. It's not bloody fair. Stupid circumpolar vortex failed.

    NOAA monitoring of ice thickness on the North has 2 extrema: end of March, when it's the end of Polar Night and the ice should be at the thickest and widest extent for the year, and end of September, when the Midsummer Sun finally sets and it had a half year of thawing and the ice should be at its thinnest and most diluted.

    But what (the fuck) is going to happen to our planet's albedo effect, if there are days of +6°C at the coldest part of the year, 400 km from the North Pole?

    Oh right I forgot the tin-foil-hat element of this. Excuse my rambling.

    <tinfoil_hat>
    Maybe, the video cameras on the Falcon rocket could take a picture of the rough ice extent of the Northern Ice Sea at the moment, and this could corroborate the NOAA's own much more detailed thickness measurements and that nice sine plot they draw, which I can't find any longer on their website.
    Maybe the US government would like to dismiss the NOAA's results as "fake news" and they'd like NOAA and their satellites to quickly go away and be defunded. I thought that a replacement fully functioning reserve satellite was already *destroyed* because "it was in the way in the storage silo" or some bullshit like that. But other governments can take photos of the Northern Ice Sea as well.
    </tinfoil_hat>

    Look here: https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/arctic-zone/detect/ice-seaice.shtml [noaa.gov] they don't show it anymore after 2016. Can anyone find me an updated graph? The one where this year's sea ice extent is shown next to the bundle of lines of previous years.

    • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Saturday March 31 2018, @09:06PM

      by zocalo (302) on Saturday March 31 2018, @09:06PM (#660943)
      The NOAA link actual says the source of the data is the NSIDC, so searching there turfed up this article that includes an image of the September 2017 minimal ice extents [nsidc.org] and includes a pretty good analysis of the data too. Looks like someone neglected to tell Trump where the data was actually originating from when he muzzled many of the US agencies doing climate research. :)
      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 01 2018, @03:39PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 01 2018, @03:39PM (#661173)

      If they don't want pictures of the poles to get out its because they show the hole that leads to inner earth:

      https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/nasa-images-show-giant-hole-8019446 [mirror.co.uk]

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Revek on Saturday March 31 2018, @07:46PM (1 child)

    by Revek (5022) on Saturday March 31 2018, @07:46PM (#660931)

    Assholes everywhere.

    --
    This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @09:29PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @09:29PM (#660948)

      My god, it's full of assholes!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 01 2018, @02:13PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 01 2018, @02:13PM (#661144)

    "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. "

    The fact that a license is required for sensing in orbit is on Congress.
    The fact that a license restricts this operation during sat deployment is on NOAA.

    NOAA's statement does not say why, only what they did and that they can and often do.
    It seems unlikely to me that the cameras would have compromised anything on Earth.
    That leaves something in space.
    Perhaps there is something about deploying the sats which is sensitive?
    Perhaps there was another vehicle nearby which somebody doesn't want showm?
    Perhaps NOAA is just flexing their CYA muscles?

    https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/licenseHome.html [noaa.gov]
    http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-statement-on-todays-broadcast-of-spacex-iridium-5-launch [noaa.gov]

(1)