> It’s not clear whether the inquiry will result in disciplinary action against Swarm, and it’s even less clear what the nature of that would be
Replicate SEC civil penalties. Swarm gets fined, the company that brokered the launch gets fined, and the person who submitted the FCC application (hopefully the CEO) gets fined. In addition, the person who submitted the application and the company are barred from registering new satellites for N years.
If the CEO represented, to the broker or the Indian government, that she had the necessary approvals I'd also hand the case to the DoJ for criminal prosecution under anti-fraud statute.
I'm a huge believer in the commercialization of space. Going renegade in LEO is like flying around without registering a flight path (EDIT: bad analogy, more like drilling in a city without a permit). Eventually you'll have a horrible disaster, and it will have been because you were impatient with a straightforward process.
While everyone jumped in to condemn irresponsible actions, it's quite unclear why everyone assumes fed's authority over foreign satellite launches. It definitely seems like case of overreaching: it was India's business to approve or deny the launch in this case.
Swarm can easily re-incorporate in the less regulated country, re-open developer office in the California, and launch all they like without fed's oversight.
Actually, aircraft dont need to register flightpaths. A transponder code and generalized flying time is all that is needed in vfr situations. Even in ifr conditions, with filed flight plans, those plans are not meant or used for collision avoidance. Radar and human eyeballs keep aircraft apart.
I still fear the Silicon Valley ethos of "move fast and break things" is infecting areas where this is outright dangerous: healthcare, self-driving cars, satellite launches.
It's one thing if your social networking app goes down for a bit or someone's favorite feature is broken, it's quite another to do something that can have severe negative consequences (in this case, for humanity at large) if something goes wrong.
I feel like all technological breakthroughs are a result of "move fast and break things" and it isn't a new concept. For example, consider normal non-self-driving cars. They kill tens of thousands of people a year. If you were writing the design document for them today, you'd mention something like "if people drive them while drunk, they could kill a lot of innocent people" and your lawyers would have a heart attack. But nobody did that, they just made them, and now society is impossible without them so we accept the cost. They moved fast and broke things.
I doubt that SpaceBEES will be as transformative as the automobile, but, approval or not, there they are in space.
(Also, it's the FCC that's the government agency involved here. The FCC does not regulate space travel, they regulate radio frequency assignments.)
I think people largely ignore that the phrase originated in non-human-life-critical software? You can't just use it as a mantra for everything (but people are!). Imagine walking into your dentists office and seeing a "move fast and break things" poster.
Like sure, if you're making a social media app... break the shit out of it... but it's not a good idea when a minimal QA process can slam your car into a wall.
How, exactly, did this ignoring an overreach of FCC authority endanger humanity? Not generalizations, but this specific case.
When you look at the details of this case, it really doesn't paint a picture in the way you're interpreting it.
Edit: Explaining for the down-votes. The orbit these things are in are easily managed and outside of major space traffic zones. The size of the satellites means they will all burn up on re-entry. Also, see my comment here:
I know this deals with a US company and the FCC, but suppose a small country which doesn't belong to any international agreements decides to launch a satellite into orbit for whatever reason. Who is to stop them? Does anyone have the right to stop them?
A small country won’t be able to launch a satellite or to afford it.
There are 12 countries capable of launching satellites and technically it’s more like 10 since Iran and North Korea can’t launch anything substantial just yet.
And those two which are the closest thing you can have to a space launch capable “rogue” nation have the most interest to actually behave since they are essentially launching a ballistic missile with a small payload and if they do it without notice well some countries in their vicinity might not wait long enough to find out what it is.
The other comments speak to the likelihood that such a thing is possible, but if you put that aside, the direct answer is no -- if some small country did develop the capability, there is nobody with the authority to stop them. Yet.
Because we have international agreements in order to establish behavior that is best for all countries involved. And there would likely be diplomatic solutions presented to bring any new spacefaring nations into agreement with everyone else.
I'm curious about the economics of that decision. Was it mentioned specifically or as an "act of god"?
It seems to me (obviously a layman) that the cost of bad PR that would come out of that would outweigh the cost of paying out in the incredibly unlikely circumstance it happened?
Of course, the cost of bad PR is also pretty immaterial since it's so unlikely to happen so I can't imagine it was given much thought.
Only bitcoin eclipses the amount of regulatory uncertainty that surrounds satellites in the US. There are clear international law reasons that the US government approval is required for launch, but there is absolutely no statute that gives the FCC authority to deny the launch on the grounds that they did -- it's a regulatory power grab on that agency's part, trying to assert regulatory authority they were never granted.
The FCC rejected the launch on the basis of tracking ability, which is something that FCC doesn't do and doesn't have any insight into assessing. If it was spectrum or comms, my assessment would have been different. However right now the satellite regulations are really in flux due to the rise of commercial space and uncertainty about space force reorganizations, etc.
FCC asserting authority over orbital trajectories (vs. say, the FAA or US Space Command who HAVE been the point of contact on those issues for decades of military and NASA space launches) is an inter-agency regulatory power grab. FCC has handled domestic issues regarding geosynchronous satellites, because those are nearly all communications related. Now they're trying to unilaterally extend that to ALL Earth-orbital trajectories.
What do you do when your local Parks & Rec department sends you a letter rejecting your claim of special tax status on your import/export business? That's basically what happened here.
The FAA has never cared about what a payload or spacecraft does once it is in orbit. They care about licensing the launches themselves and clearing the airspace, but once your vehicle is in space they don't care what you do with it (they also license reentries, but only for things that aren't meant to burn up in the atmosphere).
US STRATCOM does space situational awareness work now (US Space Command was dismantled in 2002 as part of post-9/11 reorganizations, and most of its responsibilities were handed off to STRATCOM). STRATCOM _is_ currently legally mandated to interface and share data with commercial entities for traffic management purposes. However I don't believe they have or ever had any regulatory or licensing powers. STRATCOM also seems eager to pass their situational awareness responsibilities off to either the FAA or DOC.
The FCC has been making the argument since the 90s that their charter to regulate in the "public interest" lets them take orbital debris mitigation into account when licensing satellites communications, and it's been codified into their administrative law. If congress or the president considered this a power grab, they've had more than a decade to do something about it. Trump is trying to make the DOC a "one stop shop" for commercial space licensing. However, I believe his executive orders still leave the FAA, FCC, and NOAA's current regulatory roles intact.
edit: initially had 2012 instead of 2002 for the year that US Space Command was shut down
> When I asked Spangelo why she didn’t stop the launch when the FCC denied Swarm’s application, she said, “Others have been granted applications after launching their satellites, so we were still hopeful at that point.”
> So incorporate outside America and focus on the trying to monetize your services abroad.
Still, as evidenced by the statement of the supporters who put these on the Indian rocket, there are still many cross-nation gentlemen agreements about satellite placement. This should be viewed as a good thing (even though many nation states themselves can usurp the rules they set for their private sectors), but one assumes a more formal body will have to be introduced as the satellite count triples soon.
> This type of mesh network wouldn’t really be useful in America anyway.
Disagree unless I misunderstand the purpose of Swarm's tech specifically. But in general, satellite provided internet is currently the only high speed option for a significant rural population, many of which are paying over urban rates for much less. Or even as IoT sensors, again, rural settings benefit, something the US has a lot of. Where it that type of mesh would be less useful is in places with better terrestrial coverage. Also wise to approach the profitable markets first.
So incorporate outside America and focus on the trying to monetize your services abroad.
Yes, who cares about consequences for future generations, so long as you're clear of the angry jurisdictions! Hey, why not use that strategy with dangerous pollutants? I bet you could save a lot of money manufacturing without regard to those regulations.
Seems like a total dick move to launch anyway and hope that approval is obtained later. What was the plan if approval was not obtained after launch - did they have the facilities to bring down the satellites?
This story reads like Silicon Valley hubris - break rules anyway because we know better. Why even have the FCC when random startups can create their own rules?
Seems like a total dick move to launch anyway and hope that approval is obtained later...This story reads like Silicon Valley hubris - break rules anyway because we know better.
"Do it and ask for forgiveness later," has a threshold of acceptability, as a function of consequences. Generally speaking, loss of life is clearly beyond that threshold, obviously. Significant impacts on people's lives are also beyond that threshold, I would say. More specific to the topic: when your product involves the capability to implement an ICBM, you are probably dealing with energies that place the potential consequences of your product well beyond that threshold.
The reason quoted by the article for FCC dismissal was that they are too small to be tracked, and thus avoided. Is this a legitimate concern? Even with a thousand up there, is there real concern for collisions with the amount of space involved?
I know the "technically correct" answer must be yes, as there's some increase in chance, but what realistically is that chance?
The problem is very real. It's not like the FCC's threshold for what is a sufficient size (in cubic cm of volume) is so huge, they're only asking for like a 1U cubesat or larger. The things that this company launched are TINY.
It's also technologically possible that they could have met the requirements, with a special size exemption from the FCC, by putting a radar corner-cube retroreflector on each corner of their tiny satellites, thereby artificially increasing its ability to be detected by radar, but they chose not to.
A few weeks ago, a coworker asked about adding and additional library to parse some data. The current library is at EoL, and we've had to make a few in-house patches plug the holes. We don't currently have time to do a complete replace and refactor (though we're working it in the schedule). I was asked, "Why can't we just use them in tandem? Does it matter if we parse the data twice in this instance?"
No. In this instance, it doesn't matter for this specific data to be parsed twice. The overhead would be minimal. But what if we stopped refactoring code and appended new feature onto existing code? What if we didn't bother to remove defunct API calls, and instead, we discard the old responses and just made new ones with new data?
That's why we don't just launch satellites. 4 (I think it was 4) additional objects 10cm across won't have much of an affect. The problem is when everyone starts launching satellites of various sizes no matter if they can be tracked or not.
The problem is real (as given by the example of the satellite collision mentioned in the article) and could eventually be devastating for the ability of humans to utilize LEO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
I've heard that quite a bit of venture money is flowing into "satellite IoT" to support things like precision agriculture, monitoring oil pipelines for leaks, etc. It seems that global regulatory, safety, and security planning are still at the early stages.
The article says they have power over all American companies so probably yes. If they were a foreign company with a satellite over the USA, that would be a more interesting question.
This is typical today, sadly. Move fast and break things. Do whatever you wish and simply apologize later. It's a scary world we've created for ourselves
She's quoted as relying on some understanding that others received permission retroactively. Not mentioned in the article is whether others have in fact received retroactive permission, whether it was post-denial, and whether the launcher ignored the FCC's reasonable concern, launched anyway, and still received permission.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|7 years ago|reply
Replicate SEC civil penalties. Swarm gets fined, the company that brokered the launch gets fined, and the person who submitted the FCC application (hopefully the CEO) gets fined. In addition, the person who submitted the application and the company are barred from registering new satellites for N years.
If the CEO represented, to the broker or the Indian government, that she had the necessary approvals I'd also hand the case to the DoJ for criminal prosecution under anti-fraud statute.
I'm a huge believer in the commercialization of space. Going renegade in LEO is like flying around without registering a flight path (EDIT: bad analogy, more like drilling in a city without a permit). Eventually you'll have a horrible disaster, and it will have been because you were impatient with a straightforward process.
[+] [-] vl|7 years ago|reply
Swarm can easily re-incorporate in the less regulated country, re-open developer office in the California, and launch all they like without fed's oversight.
[+] [-] sandworm101|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hn_throwaway_99|7 years ago|reply
It's one thing if your social networking app goes down for a bit or someone's favorite feature is broken, it's quite another to do something that can have severe negative consequences (in this case, for humanity at large) if something goes wrong.
[+] [-] jrockway|7 years ago|reply
I doubt that SpaceBEES will be as transformative as the automobile, but, approval or not, there they are in space.
(Also, it's the FCC that's the government agency involved here. The FCC does not regulate space travel, they regulate radio frequency assignments.)
[+] [-] saudioger|7 years ago|reply
Like sure, if you're making a social media app... break the shit out of it... but it's not a good idea when a minimal QA process can slam your car into a wall.
[+] [-] sova|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] garmaine|7 years ago|reply
When you look at the details of this case, it really doesn't paint a picture in the way you're interpreting it.
Edit: Explaining for the down-votes. The orbit these things are in are easily managed and outside of major space traffic zones. The size of the satellites means they will all burn up on re-entry. Also, see my comment here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17953257
[+] [-] elronster|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|7 years ago|reply
Look at the map of ITU member states [1] and tell me where you'll find this spacefaring nation.
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Member_s...
[+] [-] dogma1138|7 years ago|reply
There are 12 countries capable of launching satellites and technically it’s more like 10 since Iran and North Korea can’t launch anything substantial just yet.
And those two which are the closest thing you can have to a space launch capable “rogue” nation have the most interest to actually behave since they are essentially launching a ballistic missile with a small payload and if they do it without notice well some countries in their vicinity might not wait long enough to find out what it is.
[+] [-] codingdave|7 years ago|reply
Because we have international agreements in order to establish behavior that is best for all countries involved. And there would likely be diplomatic solutions presented to bring any new spacefaring nations into agreement with everyone else.
[+] [-] ergothus|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jackweirdy|7 years ago|reply
It seems to me (obviously a layman) that the cost of bad PR that would come out of that would outweigh the cost of paying out in the incredibly unlikely circumstance it happened?
Of course, the cost of bad PR is also pretty immaterial since it's so unlikely to happen so I can't imagine it was given much thought.
[+] [-] garmaine|7 years ago|reply
Only bitcoin eclipses the amount of regulatory uncertainty that surrounds satellites in the US. There are clear international law reasons that the US government approval is required for launch, but there is absolutely no statute that gives the FCC authority to deny the launch on the grounds that they did -- it's a regulatory power grab on that agency's part, trying to assert regulatory authority they were never granted. The FCC rejected the launch on the basis of tracking ability, which is something that FCC doesn't do and doesn't have any insight into assessing. If it was spectrum or comms, my assessment would have been different. However right now the satellite regulations are really in flux due to the rise of commercial space and uncertainty about space force reorganizations, etc.
FCC asserting authority over orbital trajectories (vs. say, the FAA or US Space Command who HAVE been the point of contact on those issues for decades of military and NASA space launches) is an inter-agency regulatory power grab. FCC has handled domestic issues regarding geosynchronous satellites, because those are nearly all communications related. Now they're trying to unilaterally extend that to ALL Earth-orbital trajectories.
What do you do when your local Parks & Rec department sends you a letter rejecting your claim of special tax status on your import/export business? That's basically what happened here.
[+] [-] Rebelgecko|7 years ago|reply
US STRATCOM does space situational awareness work now (US Space Command was dismantled in 2002 as part of post-9/11 reorganizations, and most of its responsibilities were handed off to STRATCOM). STRATCOM _is_ currently legally mandated to interface and share data with commercial entities for traffic management purposes. However I don't believe they have or ever had any regulatory or licensing powers. STRATCOM also seems eager to pass their situational awareness responsibilities off to either the FAA or DOC.
The FCC has been making the argument since the 90s that their charter to regulate in the "public interest" lets them take orbital debris mitigation into account when licensing satellites communications, and it's been codified into their administrative law. If congress or the president considered this a power grab, they've had more than a decade to do something about it. Trump is trying to make the DOC a "one stop shop" for commercial space licensing. However, I believe his executive orders still leave the FAA, FCC, and NOAA's current regulatory roles intact.
edit: initially had 2012 instead of 2002 for the year that US Space Command was shut down
[+] [-] billylindeman|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] craftyguy|7 years ago|reply
Is this true?
[+] [-] mirashii|7 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17953025
[+] [-] michaelt|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taksintikk|7 years ago|reply
This type of mesh network wouldn’t really be useful in America anyway.
[+] [-] kodablah|7 years ago|reply
Still, as evidenced by the statement of the supporters who put these on the Indian rocket, there are still many cross-nation gentlemen agreements about satellite placement. This should be viewed as a good thing (even though many nation states themselves can usurp the rules they set for their private sectors), but one assumes a more formal body will have to be introduced as the satellite count triples soon.
> This type of mesh network wouldn’t really be useful in America anyway.
Disagree unless I misunderstand the purpose of Swarm's tech specifically. But in general, satellite provided internet is currently the only high speed option for a significant rural population, many of which are paying over urban rates for much less. Or even as IoT sensors, again, rural settings benefit, something the US has a lot of. Where it that type of mesh would be less useful is in places with better terrestrial coverage. Also wise to approach the profitable markets first.
[+] [-] stcredzero|7 years ago|reply
Yes, who cares about consequences for future generations, so long as you're clear of the angry jurisdictions! Hey, why not use that strategy with dangerous pollutants? I bet you could save a lot of money manufacturing without regard to those regulations.
[+] [-] benmowa|7 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_radio
[+] [-] alphakappa|7 years ago|reply
This story reads like Silicon Valley hubris - break rules anyway because we know better. Why even have the FCC when random startups can create their own rules?
[+] [-] stcredzero|7 years ago|reply
"Do it and ask for forgiveness later," has a threshold of acceptability, as a function of consequences. Generally speaking, loss of life is clearly beyond that threshold, obviously. Significant impacts on people's lives are also beyond that threshold, I would say. More specific to the topic: when your product involves the capability to implement an ICBM, you are probably dealing with energies that place the potential consequences of your product well beyond that threshold.
[+] [-] Majestic121|7 years ago|reply
There's not much more details than that though, and no confirmation from FCC
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] stale2002|7 years ago|reply
It is a bit weird to me that the US would have jurisdiction over what a foreign rocket company outside the US, launches into space
[+] [-] bbarn|7 years ago|reply
I know the "technically correct" answer must be yes, as there's some increase in chance, but what realistically is that chance?
[+] [-] walrus01|7 years ago|reply
It's also technologically possible that they could have met the requirements, with a special size exemption from the FCC, by putting a radar corner-cube retroreflector on each corner of their tiny satellites, thereby artificially increasing its ability to be detected by radar, but they chose not to.
[+] [-] noxToken|7 years ago|reply
No. In this instance, it doesn't matter for this specific data to be parsed twice. The overhead would be minimal. But what if we stopped refactoring code and appended new feature onto existing code? What if we didn't bother to remove defunct API calls, and instead, we discard the old responses and just made new ones with new data?
That's why we don't just launch satellites. 4 (I think it was 4) additional objects 10cm across won't have much of an affect. The problem is when everyone starts launching satellites of various sizes no matter if they can be tracked or not.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hn_throwaway_99|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raverbashing|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] harshulpandav|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilamont|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulsutter|7 years ago|reply
EDIT: Thanks walrus01/mirashii for the EAR/ITAR points, very helpful
[+] [-] robotmlg|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lbriner|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philliphaydon|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmitrygr|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chris_wot|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mdpopescu|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chris_wot|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] howard941|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fipple|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] feadog|7 years ago|reply