Going For The Lunar X Prize? Want To Take Photos? NOAA May Require You To Get A License
from the really? dept
The Google-sponsored Lunar X Prize has received plenty of attention. Similar to the original X Prize for a privately built manned spaceship, the focus of the Lunar X Prize is to get a privately built spaceship to the moon with a robot (so, unmanned), then have that robot travel 500 meters and then send video and images back to Earth. Cool, right? Of course, you can imagine that there would be numerous permits and licenses necessary before you could just privately blast something out into space (and onto the moon). However, an anonymous reader points us to an odd one. It appears that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is warning users they may need a special license from the NOAA for any sort of remote sensor which establishes a sustained connection with Earth. In fact, some are warning that any entrant in the contest that wants to take any images of Earth needs to first get a license from the NOAA. While the NOAA points to the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992, it's not clear why it makes sense that an entrant in such a contest should need a special license just to take photos.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: lunar x prize, noaa, regulations, x prize
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
American's should be Americans - no "'"
duristriction? I think you mean jurisdiction. duristriction isnt a word, at least not in any common dictionary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We should have let you American Bashers speak German
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We should have let you American Bashers speak German
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We should have let you American Bashers speak German
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We should have let you American Bashers speak German
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We should have let you American Bashers speak German
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
or better if the European Space Agency has one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
or better if the European Space Agency has one.
or even better - China.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They don't even know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pretty clumsy implementation but given the current management not surprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple enough solution
This is a typical Washington passive-aggressive bureaucrat going out of their way to make things as difficult as possible simply because they can.
I think it was Robert Heinlein who said something to the effect of "There will be men on the moon, but nothing says they have to be American."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha
Honestly, they don't own outer space or the moon. They will have to deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read the notice
What is totally stupid about the announcement is that it only applies to taking pictures of the earth. Use of frequencies and bandwidth issues are licensed elsewhere. They simply don't want anything that might possibly be competition for their services.
Use of weather data produced largely with taxpayer money is still a tightly controlled industry based on silly laws that predate the Internet. Obviously the industry representative are using their NOAA mouthpieces to assert their divine right to control information from any conceivable secondary source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read the policy
I don't see anything in the bill that indicates a license is required to photograph earth. Perhaps Section 2 P 16 can be construed as some form of governmental oversight:
Does the NOAA maintain said archive?
On the other hand, section 2 paragraph 10 states:
Either way, this bill looks like it is more about ensuring the viability of the Landsat program, not about licensing the idea of imaging earth from space. I think YoYo might be onto something with the communication frequencies. You can't transmit in the US w/o a license; why would you be able to transmit to the US w/o some similar license?
Matt[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Matt - I read the policy, and ...
My take on the reason behind it is that it isn't for controlling radio transmissions. I think it is more for preventing private spy satellites. In fact, section 5621-a-2 specifically says that authority is limited only to the remote sensing operations of the system. Section 5656 specifically says that the operator must go to the FCC for radio transmission licensing. I'm not sure whether one can avoid the FCC licensing by siting the ground station outside the U.S., but that probably would just change the radio licensing requirement to that of the country in which the ground station was sited.
The first licensing requirement stated in the policy, in section 5622-b-1, is that the system must operate in such manner as to preserve the national security of the U.S. That's why I think the main point of the licensing is preventing private spy satellites.
Of course, this applies only to people subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., so it can't control spy satellites launched by foreign organizations, but, given that many corporations in the U.S. wouldn't give a second thought about undermining national security if they could make a buck at it, perhaps a policy like this is justified.
Assuming I'm right that the intent of the policy is to prevent private spy satellites, I imagine the Lunar X-prize participants would have no problem obtaining such a license, since I'm pretty sure any remote sensing they are doing is nowhere near the resolution that would pose a spying threat. I haven't looked into the matter further to see whether there are any costs involved in obtaining such a license, so I can't say whether this licensing is an unreasonable burden on the Lunar X-prize participants.
Of course, a bureaucrat who wants to be difficult could make problems for the Lunar X-prize people, regardless of the merits of their applications. But the charitable way to look at the letter that was sent out is that they simply wanted to point out the licensing requirement and the fact that it can take several months to process the application so that none of the Lunar X-prize participants got caught in a time bind due to late application for the license.
A helpful bureaucrat? I dare say some such do exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let them eat moon dirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the united states owns the moon, DUH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the FCC asked them to get a broadcast license to use the free public airwaves (NOT a permit, a license) to broadcast, that makes sense, I suppose, for anything broadcast over 1/4 watt, right?
Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/landsat/15USCch82.html is based on Landsat, but seems open ended, calls their issue a license, not a permit, requires all data be made available to the Government (wow), demands flight path plans and such, 120 days prior notice, also demands national security not be compromised (wow again, that's a catch all!).
Burocrats seem more intent on expanding their powers and usurping the powers of the people, rather than protecting the US Constitution (their only sworn duty) that in turn protects the people ... of the people, by the people, for the people.
Yeah, right.
PS - Regarding spil chick - please, everyone, use Firefox and or the Google-style toolbar for their in-built spell check, or edit off line and cut and paste. And, dear web designer, please allow us to later re-edit our own posts. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And then there's the wacky Lunar X Prize rules...
Above link, begin reading from paragraph 8.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy solution
No way can the US claim jurisdiction if something is launched from international waters directly into space. There are treaties in place that prevent any country from claiming territorial rights on the Moon or in space.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe they're worried....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not Amateur Radio?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]