NOAA Requires License For Photos of the Earth

Teancum writes "In an interesting show of the level of regulations private spacecraft designers have to go through, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has demanded that American participants of the Google Lunar X Prize obtain a license if their spacecraft are 'capable of actively or passively sensing the Earth's surface, including bodies of water, from space by making use of the properties of the electromagnetic waves emitted, reflected, or diffracted by the sensed objects.' What prompted NOAA to ask for this license came from a visit by the XPrize staff to the NOAA offices in Maryland. What is going to happen when 'space tourists' bring their private cameras along for the ride?"

Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[xmas2003]

Here's the letter from NOAA to the Lunar X participants [noaa.gov] that outlines how this is pursuent to the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 - says it may take up to 120 days to obtain the license - think about that before you take your first picure! ;-)

In the meantime, you can use existing satellite photos to image your house [komar.org] and here's a cool way to get a nifty Earth view. [fourmilab.ch]

What will happen?

[The Man]

Well, in order to understand what will happen with this sort of thing, one first needs to understand why so many banks are headquartered in Bermuda, Macao, Jersey, and Guernsey and why shipping companies are so often headquartered in the Marshall Islands. Once you understand that, you'll know the outcome of US policy on private space travel.

Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992

[Bananatree3]

This is because Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 and its implementing regulations require any person subject to the jurisdiction or control of the United States who operates or proposes to operate a private remote sensing space system that images the Earth, and/or establishes substantial connections with the United States regarding the operation of such a system to obtain a license from NOAA.

Blame this, the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 [nasa.gov]

And this

[Bananatree3]

Here's the direct language of the bill [loc.gov]

This is actually for real

[Steve1952]

This is actually for real. See:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c102:1:./temp/~c1029W3AOE:e25773 [loc.gov]:

SEC. 202. CONDITIONS FOR OPERATION.

(a) LICENSE REQUIRED FOR OPERATION- No person who is subject to the jurisdiction or control of the United States may, directly or through any subsidiary or affiliate, operate any private remote sensing space system without a license pursuant to section 201.

(b) LICENSING REQUIREMENTS- Any license issued pursuant to this title shall specify that the licensee shall comply with all of the requirements of this Act and shall--

(1) operate the system in such manner as to preserve the national security of the United States and to observe the international obligations of the United States in accordance with section 506;

(2) make available to the government of any country (including the United States) unenhanced data collected by the system concerning the territory under the jurisdiction of such government as soon as such data are available and on reasonable terms and conditions;

(3) make unenhanced data designated by the Secretary in the license pursuant to section 201(e) available in accordance with section 501;

(4) upon termination of operations under the license, make disposition of any satellites in space in a manner satisfactory to the President;

(5) furnish the Secretary with complete orbit and data collection characteristics of the system, and inform the Secretary immediately of any deviation; and

(6) notify the Secretary of any agreement the licensee intends to enter with a foreign nation, entity, or consortium involving foreign nations or entities.

Re:Wow

[dattaway]

Um, Wow i didnt think you could copyright THE EARTH.. What next? The Moon!

I'm sorry, but the Moon is a registered trademark according to the USPTO. Seriously. 9482 entries with "Moon"

This is to stop WWIII

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about it and RTFA, this is to stop WWIII from starting, in 1992 things were still very hair-trigger to a launch and annilation of the entire earth, all over some dude with a camera on a rocket, which would be unidentified by the US and USSR. Yet it comes from US airspace, prelude to a first nuke launch is total denial you have launched to beat the 15 minute retaliatory window and pound their nukes in the silos prior to launch.

This is a launch from anywhere, especially the sea where our offensive sub fleet is.

NOAA is the good guys

[daemonburrito]

This is law, and is totally out of the control of NOAA.

I've done a lot of work with NOAA and NOAA datasets and this sort of thing happens a lot, because of businesses who believe that "the government should not be in the business of distributing data". Predictably, they lobby congress. FWIW, I've witnessed NOAA passively resist this bullshit as much as they can.

BTW, if you find this sort thing disgusting (as I do), stop going to weather.com and accu-weather. They are the worst offenders. Every couple of years they try to shut down NOAA ftp servers so they can be the gatekeepers of taxpayer-funded data (like maps).

This law, in particular, is a piece of a strategy that didn't work in the early 90s, thanks in large part to career people at NOAA. They got this law passed, but they weren't able to shut down the ftp servers.

Please don't blame the NOAA people. Blame the businesses like weather.com and accu-weather, and blame a bribable congress.

Re:Space is International territory

[Dredd13]

Space is by definition a international territory. As such the laws that NOAA sites don't apply in space (they do in the U.S but not in space).

True, but a US citizen/corporation can be punished (whether this is "morally right" or not I am not debating) for actions they take outside the country.

For example, if a US citizen travels to Cuba and spends money "in Cuban jurisdiction", the law forbidding the spending of money in Cuba is not "in effect" because the US doesn't run Cuba, but when the US citizen gets back on home soil, you can bet that los federales will want a word with them.

It's only a matter of time before Americans begin getting busted for "driving too fast" on the Autobahn, or "inhaling illicit materials" in Amsterdam.

But, if you're a US citizen, these are the laws you've allowed yourself to be subject to, stupid as they are.

Re:Wow

[sumdumass]

Actually, almost all countries with a space program have a similar rule/law. They want to know who is taking images of potentially secrete spots like military bases or missile silos and what they will be used for. Almost all commercial satellites had to go through this too. The 1992 law is just the recent carnation of it. The previous act which was in 1984 or so maintained that the government owned all private satellites with these capabilities and held the potential to censor images. Before the 1984 act, there wasn't to many commercial satellites with this capability.

This is actually part of the import/export controls on technology (ITAR). Any company under US jurisdiction wanting to mess with a satellite or anything going into space has to deal with it. It isn't hard to do but it does require time and a little amount of effort. The reason NOAA contacted participants of the Google Xprize program is because they didn't seem to be aware of it. But any launch authorization will require a statement to these capabilities and if present, a permit of any part of the company is connected to US jurisdiction.

I imagine as private space flight and tourism becomes more available, the laws will be changed someone to make it a: more apparent and b: to accommodate new demands from these flights and their passengers.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, if you read the house bill, link [loc.gov]
And the licensing section specificially says that it requires all to get a license to 1) Protect National Security 2)Require sharing of whatever data collected with the government 3-6) Keep track of your orbit/space junk/international laws.

Re:NOAA is the good guys

[daemonburrito]

I don't know for sure that they're not evil, but wunderground.com has a nexrad interface that is the bee's knees.

legally speaking

[Gryftir]

A review of the law indicates that the secretary of commerce only has statutory authority to require licenses for private remote sensing. The relevant passage is:

"In the case of a private space system that is used for remote sensing and other purposes, the authority of the Secretary under this subchapter shall be limited only to the remote sensing operations of such space system."

While land remote sensing is defined, the statutory authority is limited to private remote sensing, which is not defined. A clear english reading would seem to indicate space tourists snapping pictures with their cameras are not engaging in remote sensing.

Even if land remote sensing, and private remote sensing are ruled to the be the same, land remote sensing is defined in terms of satellites, which means any space vehicle which does not enter into orbit does not require any license.

Of course the main argument for ruling that land remote sensing and private remote sensing are the same is to speak to the intent of Congress. The whole point of the licensing is to provide for commercial competition to the LandSat system, which tourists don't seem to qualify for.

The act, in any case, allows, in the case of adverse action, for people to ask the secretary of commerce to review the matter, and to bring it to the courts after he gives his final opinion, if they still don't like it.

Re:Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992

[Lincolnshire Poacher]

I actually remember this Act being passed - Flight International ran several articles about it, back in the days when they had worthwhile spaceflight coverage. I think Tim Furniss was their spaceflight correspondent at the time.

The Act had several goals. Prior to 1992 there was no straightforward oversight of US-operated remote sensing systems. There was a terrible hullabaloo about Landsat, which required all sorts of regulatory exceptions and special handling, not only for its on-orbit ops but also for the radio links ( FCC was also involved ). The Act was intended to simplify the application for authorisation.

The Act was also intended to make the USA an attractive base for remote sensing operations, thereby retarding the advance of technology in the rest of the World. Again, this was to be achieved by providing a clear regulatory framework to avoid ambiguity and encouraging the dissemination of approved imagery as a US commercial advantage.

Finally, of course, there were the ``security'' considerations. The military didn't make too much of this, considering that at that very point in time they were buying Kometa imagery from the Russians ( they used Soviet / Russian photos of Washington to plan Dolittle's funeral )

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

They want to know who is taking images of potentially secrete spots like military bases or missile silos and what they will be used for

The majority of military bases in the US don't have particularly restrictive airspace (usually class D). I just looked up 3 bases on skyvector.com, only Groom Lake, AKA Area 51, was in restricted airspace, in fact, it did not even appear as a marked airport on the chart. Another was a major air force base, and the third was a nuclear missile base. Both of these had class D airspace, meaning a pilot is only required to contact Air Traffic Control before entering, he does not need explicit permission. It is also possible to fly above the ceiling of the airspace and not even need to contact ATC. It would be far easier, less expensive, more effective and less noticeable for anyone so inclined to gather such pictures to take sight seeing flight that passed nearby or even overhead of a base.

Re:What will happen?

[simonbp]

Which is precisely why the current front-runner (Odyssey Moon) is based on the Isle of Man, despite being a mainly US/Canadian team...

Simon ;)

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[k33l0r]

I'd call that a broken window fallacy [wikipedia.org].

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[tricorn]

Actually, the interest seems to be in PROMOTING it by making it available and regulating it so it is not a free-for-all, not "protecting it" it the way you're saying. There certainly needs to be SOME regulation, you don't want people sending up satellites in any-old-orbit, transmitting on any-old-frequency, shining laser lights down at your favorite observatory, or whatever...

Without such regulations, you'd be in a situation where they'd probably simply prohibit all such activities. Regulations like this are designed to PERMIT things to happen, while retaining enough control that it isn't chaotic. I didn't see any reference in the regulations to a fee for such a license.

The regulations in this part are intended to:
(1) Preserve the national security of the United States;
(2) Observe the foreign policies and international obligations of the United States;
(3) Advance and protect U.S. national security and foreign policy interests by maintaining U.S. leadership in remote sensing space activities, and by sustaining and enhancing the U.S. remote sensing industry;
(4) Promote the broad use of remote sensing data, their information products and applications;
(5) Ensure that unenhanced data collected by licensed private remote sensing space systems concerning the territory of any country are made available to the government of that country upon its request, as soon as such data are available and on reasonable commercial terms and conditions as appropriate;
(6) Ensure that remotely sensed data are widely available for civil and scientific research, particularly environmental and global change research; and
(7) Maintain a permanent comprehensive U.S. government archive of global land remote sensing data for long-term monitoring and study of the changing global environment.

As for the space tourist taking along a camera, that's not "remote sensing".

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[tricorn]

Well, your math is correct, but your numbers are suspect. Where'd you come up with 95% and a chain of 10 permits that you have to apply for one at a time?

Look, I'm a flight instructor, I've dealt with the FAA quite a bit, and for the most part they are dedicated people who really are out to serve the public. Occasionally you get an idiot, but most of the problems come from higher up, not with the "civil servants" you seem intent on bashing. From all accounts I've heard, NOAA people are not just mindless bureaucrats, but people interested in their field and work.

I think the people bitching about this are going to look awfully foolish when the permits start being approved for those groups that apply for them (I didn't check to see how long the licensing period is for, it may not even make sense to apply for this until they're a lot closer to launch).

BTW, with most permit situations where you need multiple permits/licenses, you usually get the approval process rolling on all of them at once; where there are prerequisites, most agencies I've dealt with can issue a permit/license that says "valid only with xxxx permit from xxxx agency" or whatever. You don't have to get one first, then get the next one, then the next one. Heck, for a flight instructor license, you need to have a commercial pilot's license. It isn't uncommon to get both of them on the same checkride. To take the knowledge exam (formerly known as the "written"), all you need is an instructor's authorization, and it's good for a year after that. So, you're getting close to the required hours for a commercial rating, you take the commercial and instructor knowledge exams, you go up for a checkride, and you come down with a new commercial license and instructor's license. Nobody requires you to get your commercial rating before you can take the instructor exams, heck, you can take the exams before you even get a STUDENT license.

So unless you have applications for all of the relevant permits and licenses you'd need to make a space launch, sitting there in your hands, and you can quote to me the sections where each says you can't send in the application until you've received other permits, you're just making stuff up. Four month lead time on a space launch simply doesn't sound like that big of a deal, what, you were planning on launching next weekend, maybe, and forgot to apply? Hmm, I'm not so sure I want you launching anywhere near me if you're that careless!

Re:No Jurisdiction

[Teancum]

I've been digging really hard into not only the text of this law, but also the legislative history of it.

I think a constitutional challenge could be mounted here if you really wanted to try hard... and have common sense prevail.

The legislative comments (indeed only one house member even made any comments about it at all) was concerning the Landsat program and how data generated by government sponsored spacecraft or at least government launched spacecraft would be worked.

That is some sound reasoning: If the government is footing the bill, even partially, it ought to have a say in what goes "up there". Also, taxpayer-funded remote sensing activity ought to have the data shared with those who are helping pay the bill: The general public. This data ought to be shared as well.

BTW, I don't think regulating what a satellite is doing "up there" in this manner toward completely private ventures is necessarily productive and healthy. I can certainly imagine a whole bunch of reasons why privately collected data ought to remain private... if only for competitive advantages between other private individuals.

There are several ways you can read this law, and the interpretation of the current NOAA bureaucrats is just one of them.