Wow, I love this story. It raises so many intriguing issues in one small space.<p>First, while the FCC clearly has US authority over spectrum, how is it that its charter includes satellite launches? Or conversely, if they SpaceBees never turn on did they violate the license? And on what basis does the FCC get to evaluate the risk of other things in orbit, isn't that NORAD's job? And what if this had been a startup in Bangalore or Mumbai, would they be getting crap from the FCC for launching the very same satellites?<p>Now I understand the leverage the FCC can use with US based launch services, sort "Follow our rules and do what we say or we will have the FAA pull your launch permit." but that leverage doesn't really exist for foreign launch services. Heck the Russians might launch stuff like this just to irritate the FCC and tweak our noses.<p>And it raises a whole different set of questions about cubesats. How closely are they inspected at Integration time? Is is possible to create a cubesat that looks and smells like it is doing one mission but is actually doing a different mission? What happens when someone launches an orbital spy satellite network? Not the one you would expect taking pictures of people's back yards, but a collection of satellites with large lenses that are looking <i>up</i> and <i>over</i> at the things coming up from the ground. Imagine an ion engine powered small sat that works its way up to GEO and snaps pictures of all the satellites it can find and beams those images down to earth.<p>Let's say their quad systems stays under the weight of the typical cubesat limit of 1.33kg. That means they could launch 100,000+ satellites on a single F9 load. And while that would be silly (They would all be in a very similar orbit) it suggests how easily someone could (in theory) just "throw up" a covert microwave based communication network on a very small number of launches.<p>These are definitely 21st century sorts of problems :-).
A lot of people are wondering why the FCC has jurisdiction over this. The reason is that Swarm is operating an unauthorized experimental radio station on American soil. [0] That's always been illegal, as it should be.<p>That shouldn't be the end of the discussion, though. Why didn't the FCC grant Swarm a license in the first place? Basically, the FCC claims the right to take action to minimize the danger of orbital debris created by US-operated satellites. [1] According to the FCC, this jurisdiction is granted by the Communications Act of 1934. [2] But that requires a <i>very</i> broad interpretation of the law. If promoting "the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest" lets the FCC make regulations about orbital debris, then surely it also applies to just about anything that has a radio.<p>I don't like what Swarm did here -- I think they are legitimately endangering other satellites -- but I don't like the precedent the FCC is setting either. This seems like a classic case of bureaucratic overreach to me.<p>Primary sources:<p>[0] Swarm's license application: <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/442_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=77426&license_seq=78134" rel="nofollow">https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/442_Print.cfm?mode=cu...</a><p>[1] FCC experimental license rules, section 5.64:
<a href="http://www.fr.com/files/Uploads/attachments/fcc/FCC_Part%205-Experimental-License-Rules.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.fr.com/files/Uploads/attachments/fcc/FCC_Part%205...</a><p>[2] "Mitigation of Orbital Debris", section (III)(A): <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-130A1.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-130A1.p...</a>
The linked FCC letter (<a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=203152&x=." rel="nofollow">https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=203152&x=.</a>) actually explained their rationale well (satellite too small to track with monitoring equipment so there was no way to warn other operators their satellite was about to be pummeled) and their idea to broadcast its location with GPS was not considered reliable enough.<p>Still seems weird the FCC and not NASA or the Air Force makes this call. Isn't the FCC busy diving into rooms full of gold coins from Verizon?
How does the FCC have jurisdiction? Maybe the radio broadcast in US territory. However, it was not even an American rocket?<p>I am sorry, but not sure how the FCC has any jurisdiction here. However, I can see the issue with them being small and hard to and track, but still not sure how FCC is even the right entity to handle this.<p>However, the US is also is weird for instance taxes are based of citizenship not were you live geographically. For instance if you have lived in Japan for 10 years you still would have to pay taxed back to the US.
Everyone's talking about the FCC and whether the launch should have been allowed; what I'm curious about is how the Swarm people thought they could get away with this. They obviously know that the satellites will be tracked; did they really think the FCC would just say, "Oh, well, since you already did it, I guess it's ok..." It doesn't make any sense.
The rate of satellite launches seems to be increasing at an ever-greater rate. With the advent of SpaceX, ISRO, and many new actors in the launch business space has never been so cheaply accessible. A runaway Kessler Effect (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome</a>), making space access for everyone problematic, seems now a real possibility, especially if a few bad actors launch junk into space with disregard for the safety of others.<p>I'm not sure who should be responsible, but some coordination at the international level seems necessary to make sure this does not happen.
Satellite industry perspective here. I read the PDF copy of the FCC letter. It appears the FCC wants to ban them because the dimensions of each satellite are too small to accurately determine the TLEs of (two line elements) using the USAF/NORAD spacecraft tracking systems.<p>There is nothing <i>RF</i> regulatory mentioned in the FCC's letter.<p>Does this mean the FCC has stated a position that it has a problem with all cubesats of similar sized launched by all other nations?<p>It is kind of weird that the FCC is in charge of orbital debris mitigation and avoidance. If the US feds intend to regulate satellite dimensions and orbits it needs to be done by some sort of aerospace experts.
There seems to be lot of questions about exactly why is this in FCC's jurisdiction. In fact the authority for authorizing commercial satellites and allocating their orbital positions is ITU, but you don't deal with ITU directly but through it's national member organisation, which in US in this case is FCC (for some other things you might want from ITU you would have to go through NIST or maybe even GSA).
"<i>The U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Special Operations Command has also expressed interest in using Swarm’s network for “tracking and geo-locating a large number of items on the ground and at sea.”</i>"<p>Hypothetically, could the DoD have given them the go-ahead without informing the FCC?
Isn't there a ton of space debris, ranging in size from mm to meters? A 1U cubesat is 10x10x11cm, and these satellites are listed as 10x10x2.8cm. What are the size bounds of the "danger zone" of items that are too small to spot reliably but still large enough to damage satellites? Would a 1cm³ / ~10 gram steel bolt be a problem? What about all of the chunks of debris created by previous space collisions and anti-satellite weapons?<p>Also, it seems like either (A) the satellites are big enough to track using the space surveillance network, negating the FCC's complaint, or (B) the satellites are too small to see reliably, meaning that it would be hard to pin any collision on these satellites. Perhaps there is a gray area where we can observe it, but not reliably.<p>I wonder how the FCC makes these decisions. The article mentioned that Swarm included passive radar reflectors, but that those will only help boost the radar cross-section for a small band of frequencies that are only used by a small fraction of the SSN. Ideally, our detection capability will improve over time and this will cease to be an issue. It would be a shame if no US company could ever launch a sub-1U satellite.
Organizations that willfully violate the law, especially in ways that pose threats to the lives and property of others, should be terminated.<p>The US government granted them incorporation (or some similar status) and all the privileges that came with that. I wish the government would raise the cost of non-compliance by exercising it's right to revoke those privileges.
I'm not sure how to feel about this. I know on the one hand that I feel communications in the US are an oligopopaly that hurts innovation and consumers. However, I'm not versed in whether satellite collision is a credible threat or merely an administrative hurdle to keep competition away from power-players.<p>I also assume pretty much everybody else who is so upset on this thread is also unaware of how satellites and debris are tracked nationally/internationally, so I'm confused why opinions are so black-and-white.
How much does it cost to launch 4 of these 1/4 u satellites? Wikipedia says $100k per cubesat, other sources say a little less. Just think, that's within the reach of thousands of us software engineers - at least a few launches. It's like one year's mortgage payment in the bay area (I kid a little). But regardless, that's incredible! it could be your retirement hobby - you pay someone for a 'standard' cubestate, you program it, you put some cameras and other sensors on it, you will pass over anything in the world, your own photos of area 51 or whatever. Actually, would it be legal to take your own photos from space? Maybe to work around this issue you'd have to set up an llc in mexico or the bahamas. Still, I have to keep reminding myself, someone who was a young teenage when cosmos came out, I am living in the world of tomorrow!
Swarm tried to get FCC approval and failed [1]. It then decided to go ahead its plans anyway.<p>[1] <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=203152&x=" rel="nofollow">https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=203152&x=</a>.
does the FCC actually have authority to govern space?<p>because, you know, it's space...<p>like what are they gonna do about it if the startup relocated to another country?
This could be a milestone which accelerated the process for updating space laws to govern commercial launches to space without compromising the right to do so and without jeopardizing the safety. It must be the role of consulting company in US to ensure that the satellites which were on-boarded adhered to the FCC protocols, as for Antrix Ltd (commerical arm of ISRO) which likely communicated with the consulting company; it didn't have the need to do so. In-fact that particular launch PSLV-C40 included defence payload (Carbonite-2) from RAF as well, so unless the international space laws dictate specific terms to launching agencies like United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) for our oceans; these are bound to happen.
“Spaceflight has never knowingly launched a customer who has been denied an FCC license. It is the responsibility of our customers to secure all FCC licenses.”<p>Best way to avoid saying you've launched illegal satellites.
I'm kind of curious how the KickSat project achieved regulatory approval back in (2014?) for their Sprites. IIRC there were 100 sprite PCB's released from a Cubesat with a UHF radio and chip solar panels on each sprite.
<a href="https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/zacinaction/kicksat-your-personal-spacecraft-in-space/updates" rel="nofollow">https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/zacinaction/kicksat-you...</a>
While I'm not advocating space trash, I'm having a hard time imaging a collision being even remotely possible given how tiny these things are and how massive space is.
What will happen when more and more private organizations gain the ability to launch things into orbit? It's pretty damn intriguing but also a can of worms.
Is this relevant to Chinese Tiangong-1 space station that is going to crash on Earth <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/09/tiangong-1-scientists-unsure-where-chinese-space-station-will-crash-to-earth" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/09/tiangong-1-s...</a>
I'm most worried about F=MA. Micro satellites that are almost all fuel attaching to large pieces of space debris for extra mass and tug boating them into a collision course with military satellites.<p>Large satellites are the new air craft carrier sized targets. Small satellites that can reboot after an EMP unharmed are the only option.
Space is not really a great place to "be naughty." High-velocity trash can ruin a lot of expensive equipment, and the US has been able to nuke space for 50 years:<p><pre><code> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
</code></pre>
Please, folks, just follow the rules.
Does this imply that ISRO launched satellites which is debris risk without due diligence. I always had a feeling that their launches with huge number of small satellites were largely a publicity gimmick, sort of cover for their troubles with developing realiable heavy lift vehicles.
Aside from all of the interesting jurisdictional points ITT, this piece reads like a media hit. If that's right, it might imply the founders are either confident they're in the clear legally, or looking to establish a precedent that they hope to use to defeat regulation.
The FCC is renowned for going <i>balls to the wall</i> with enforcement. This is going to be really interesting to watch unfold! I am guessing that the FCC will use whatever means at its disposal to get what it wants here.
I wonder, why did FCC revoke the approval for the larger satellites? Seems really weird to punish that way.
If their decisions have legal power, they should sue the company, but they must not revoke approval from a valid request.
All that seems like a knee-jerk reaction.
The FAA has jurisdiction over launches through US-controlled airspace. The FCC has jurisdiction over radio signals originating within the US.<p>It is debatable whether a satellite in polar LEO is "within the US" for the purposes of jurisdiction, but even assuming that it is, the FCC can only theoretically control the use of its radios <i>while over US territory</i>.<p>It has nothing to say whatsoever about whether the satellite can <i>be there</i> in orbit.<p>Judge David Sentelle [to FCC]: "You can't regulate washing machines. You can't rule the world."<p>So, not the first time the FCC has acted bigger than its britches.<p>It seems likely there should be a UN mission for avoiding Kessler Syndrome and perhaps further regulating the tracking and traffic control of human-launched objects.