Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

> hey launched from an INDIAN launcher after they didn't get permission to launch in the USA

The way ITU rules work, the country responsible for a satellite is the country from where it comes. Not from which it launches. (Launch providers are supposed to verify registration with a satellite's country, oversight Indian authorities failed to provide.)

Swarm's satellite was made in America by American engineers working for an American company. If it rams into a Chinese bird, the U.S. is responsible. Hence why the FCC is pissed.

View on HN

Not sure that's true. A sibling comment suggests the opposite -- that the party that launches the satellite is responsible. I did a little digging, and some discussion around the text of the Outer Space Treaty appears to suggest that India is responsible for it[0].

[0] https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/25981/might-isros-...

The first paragraph of that question says 'address the possibility that a US company may have had spacecraft launched into orbit without the appropriate approval from the US government.'

This is a discussion of another offence against a different document and assumes the first offence against FCC regulations is valid. Be careful not to conflate the two, one causes the other.

It's still weird that the FCC is the responsible US agency, which was discussed here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16555810

> It's still weird that the FCC is the responsible US agency,

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU)"is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN)" that "coordinates the shared global use of the radio spectrum, promotes international cooperation in assigning satellite orbits, works to improve telecommunication infrastructure in the developing world, and assists in the development and coordination of worldwide technical standards" [1].

If a single agency is to interface with the ITU, it makes sense for it to be the FCC.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunicatio...

> If a single agency is to interface with the ITU, it makes sense for it to be the FCC.

I don't see any reason for it to be a single agency. Not knowing anything about the details, I wouldn't think the FCC would be able to support the space-fairing expertise to properly regulate space debris given the dramatic increase in satellite density expected in the coming decades. New agencies get created all the time to deal with new regulatory fields that outgrow their initial home.

Needless to say, the UN is not a good lead to follow with respect to nimble regulatory structure.

> Needless to say, the UN is not a good lead to follow with respect to nimble regulatory structure.

I'm sure the world is waiting agog for your proposals for an alternative international body able to coordinate communication satellite frequencies and orbits across all nations.

You would rather it be the Air Force perhaps?

I can't imagine that being an improvement on any axis ...

NASA or the FAA would seem a more obvious choice for regulating space debris than the FCC.

Sure, it would seem more obvious, but that's the federal government. Why are the NPS and BLM under the DOI but USFS is under the USDA? Tons of USFS land borders NPS and BLM so it seems like one department in charge would make sense...

I'm going to guess NASA didn't want it or wasn't trusted to do so. They're rocket scientists, not trash men / women.

The FAA does planes.

It's like - I'm guessing - the FCC got it because the first non-gov satellites were for comms. It's not likely the Luddites in Washington DC would have anticipated the situations we have today.

> The FAA does planes.

They also oversee the launch and reentry of space vehicles, amongst numerous other roles.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/as...

But when did that role begin?

> Why are the NPS and BLM under the DOI but USFS is under the USDA?

Because forestry is agriculture with trees as the crop. While USFS lands are often used by the public recreationally in the same way as parks, they have a fundamentally different purpose that aligns exactly with the different government departments they are part of.

How do you fit the BLM in the mix then? Tons of grazing happens on BLM land. Quarries, mines, and oil/gas wells happen on both USFS and BLM land. Recreation happens on both. It seems like one agency administrating public lands makes more sense.

Different agencies results in different responses to the same problems, for example, white nose syndrome affecting bats in caves.

The ITU has been around since 1865. Hence the FCC's involvement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com