FCC Issues Warning in Wake of Swarm's Unauthorized Launch

https://www.space.com/40318-fcc-issues-warning-after-unauthorized-launch.html

by jackfoxy • 8 years ago

135 158 8 years ago

space.com

2close4comfort• 8 years ago

What happened to allowing the industry to regulate itself?

gcbw2• 8 years ago

it's working. we just have to wait for the regulation to trickle down to the start ups.

greglindahl4• 8 years ago

The overwhelming majority of the industry is in favor of these regulations being formal. No one wants space debris.

JustSomeNobody2• 8 years ago

What does that look like, exactly? Should SWARM have been "allowed" to launch? Who is the "allowing" body? What rules do they all follow?

I'd say this is a case where the industry didn't regulate itself.

Confusion• 8 years ago

Externalities happened.

GCU-Empiricist• 8 years ago

IANAL but my TLDR is Swarm applied for US licencing to launch, got told no, because there devices are too small for some ground based tracking systems, but launched anyways because they already had bought space on an Indian launch and they didn't have time to move ownership to a better regulatory body. On the plus side it's time to look at who owns the support & development contract for the air-forces satellite radar, probably LockMart, because they will probably get a contract to improve to a 5cm or less resolution.

dboreham• 8 years ago

Like this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/FPQ-16_PARCS ?

Disclosure : I've been inside that building (before 9/11 security-tightening epoch).

om42• 8 years ago

Yup! Lockheed Martin was awarded the contract a few years ago: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/space-fence.ht...

novalis784• 8 years ago

Why does reading this sound like a prequel to 1984? I wonder how the first pioneers of aircraft would have ever gotten off the ground had they lived in a similar stringent ‘regulatory environment’

tptacek2• 8 years ago

Why would there have been any air traffic regulation? There were no aircraft at the time. There are now.

novalis784• 8 years ago

Check out Glenn Martin in ‘To raise heaven ans Earth’. The amount of freedom these inventors needed and took advantage of would be much harder to achieve today. That’s exactly the point - they were able to test, build, fly, improve their ‘dangerous experiments’ without local, state or Federal government stepping in.

FiatLuxDave3• 8 years ago

I didn't see novalis78 mention air traffic regulation, just regulation.

According to the regulations of the time, early air pioneers were perceived to be trespassing. See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum,_eius_est_usqu...

Nowadays it may seem obvious that aircraft are not trespassing when they are flying over us, but it was not obvious at the time. A future regulatory regime for satellites could also conceivably see it as obvious that satellite design shouldn't be limited by the ability for them to be tracked by a common tracking system, but rather have a goal to avoid collisions through other means.

WillPostForFood• 8 years ago

He didn’t say “air traffic regulation”, he said regulatory environment. Barriers today would range from safety regulation to disturbing endangered gnat breeding to neighborly noise complaints.

throwawayjava4• 8 years ago

I wonder how the first pioneers of aircraft would have ever gotten off the ground had they lived in a similar stringent ‘regulatory environment’

You realize that satellites are not a new technology, right? There are literally thousands of them up there. Sputnik was launched in 1957.

Let's compare to mandatory pilots licensing. The first flights were in 1903 or so. Air traffic was regulated in various ways at the federal level by the 1920s. So about 20 years from first flight to regulation.

It has been over 60 years since the first satellite launch.

Also, airplanes have a distinct advantage: they are easier to track and always come down within a few minutes of breaking down. If anything, satellites should be more regulated.

The idea that putting satellites in LEO is some sort of brand new never-before-done thing that deserves wide latitude for greenfield engineering is crazy. Hell, I've owned a GPS receiver for about 20 years! Space is a frontier. LEO, however, has been a crowded commons for at least a decade or two.

Why does reading this sound like a prequel to 1984?

Who knows, but this seems common enough that it deserved a name. I propose "1984 disease" as a new colloquialism for the act of comparing reasonable regulation to dystopian authoritarianism.

gnode4• 8 years ago

The idea that putting satellites in LEO is some sort of brand new never-before-done thing that deserves wide latitude for greenfield engineering is crazy. Hell, I've owned a GPS receiver for about 20 years!

GPS (along with the other major navigation satellite constellations) are in Medium Earth Orbit.

LEO is about to become a lot more crowded, thanks to cheaper launch costs and miniaturisation. What was previously done with MEO and GEO satellites can now be done with LEO constellations, with the advantages of being closer to earth.

Some proposed constellations in LEO number in the thousands of satellites, which is unprecedented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_constellation#Commun...

JustSomeNobody2• 8 years ago

Just because a society has rules, doesn't make it a dystopia.

novalis784• 8 years ago

What is "a society". Who makes those rules? How far away from the will of the sovereign is the latest ABC..XYZ agency? Who oversees the regulators and law enforcement in a transparent way? Can/should one country's official dictate what other countries do or who they launch into space?

everdev2• 8 years ago

Swarm applied for an FCC license, but was denied on concerns that its spacecraft, being "smaller than 10 cm in one of their three dimensions," couldn't be reliably tracked by the Air Force's Space Surveillance Network.

And what is the concern around tracking them, inability to divert a spacecraft or satellite that might collide with a swarm of small objects?

piker• 8 years ago

Yes, but not only a swarm, even just a single satellite is a tiny missile that is otherwise invisible in LEO.

everdev2• 8 years ago

Then yeah, that seems pretty irresponsible to put other people's property in danger and potentially lives if they're within distance of the ISS.

outworlder3• 8 years ago

And what is it made of? These satellites are tiny. Unless they are made of more exotic materials, they will not survive reentry.

cbanek3• 8 years ago

Most spacecraft/satellites don't have onboard radar or other local scanning equipment, and "diverting" a spacecraft is actually a pretty complicated thing. This would involve multiple delta-v (using thrusters), both to avoid the object and then go back into their normal orbit. That could eliminate years of useful lifetime of a satellite, because those thrusters are usually used just for stationkeeping. Also, whatever orbit they are in is usually related to what the satellite is doing, so it might affect performance/reception/scanning/etc.

Just like the movie Gravity, if there was an explosion in space and you had a lot of small objects floating around in a cloud you can't detect, that could snowball into destroying more things in orbit, making the problem even worse. Right now there's no way I know of to clean up space junk in orbit other than waiting for it to burn up, which could take years or tens of years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_station-keeping

akira2501• 8 years ago

that could snowball into destroying more things in orbit

It even has a name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

mirashii2• 8 years ago

I think you heavily overstate the difficulty and cost of diverting a spacecraft, especially in the case of cubesats, which in general do not have any propulsion systems to do the delta-v manuevers you state. For collision avoidance for cubesats, realistically you just change the drag profile to bring the spacecraft into a higher or lower orbit. While this can in some cases have an impact on lifetime, they're not generally going to be manuevers away from their existing orbit enough to change performance or reception characteristics as the new orbit is always going to be an orbit that the spacecraft would be expected to hit anyways.

Additionally, as other comments have alluded to, part of the FCC requirements that these spacecraft have to meet is a maximum deorbit time, which is (I believe) 25 years. For satellites as low as these ones were, that period will be lower.

I'm all for the FCC throwing the book at this company, but just want to make sure we don't have misconceptions as a community about what or why these things are regulated and how they work.

ceph_• 8 years ago

Space debris is a massive problem that is only getting worse. [1]

These objects aren't just floating up there, they're travelling at tens of thousands of miles per hour. If they can't be tracked, they can't be avoided.

[1] https://youtu.be/HVov8o9x0yI

randyrand• 8 years ago

It can be tracked, just not 100% of the time.

But here's the thing. Momentum. If you've tracked it once, you know its location for many months to come.

TangoTrotFox• 8 years ago

There's a lot more nuance here and that video is misleading in several ways.

Starting with the weakest reason first, but one that's also very important. Space is really big. There are some 6 figures of tiny things in space and thousands of larger things. This sounds pretty scary. But now imagine that we put 6 figures of tiny things, and some thousands of large things in random places in the US and set them on a random path. You can intuit that the odds of any collision are going to be extremely low. And now imagine the entirety of LEO. It is magnitudes larger than the USA of course.

The next is that objects tend to be going in the same direction. Rockets take advantage of Earth's rotation to get a 'head start' on their launch which means that most things end up going in the same orbital direction. Two things going the same speed with the same orbital characteristics will never collide. With different orbital characteristics, they will get two chances for collision per orbit with an extremely low chance of it occurring by chance.

And maybe the biggest point is another really cool and counter intuitive part of space. When we think of the USA we obviously just think of the ground. But of course there is a vertical axis in space. And the awesome thing here is what determines your altitude in space. It's entirely based on your velocity (well and the mass of whatever you're orbiting). In other words, objects cannot collide unless they're traveling at the same rate of speed. Pretty neat!

Another issue is that even at LEO, objects do experience some atmospheric drag. Any object in LEO that is not occasionally correcting its orbit (accelerating) will eventually come back down to Earth. This includes all of that tiny debris.

So now make the US absurdly vastly larger. And create multiple layers of the USA where any given car traveling at any given speed goes on a specific layer. And set them [almost] all in the same direction. And finally remove small stuff (or 'decommissioned' cars) over time. So sure, space debris is something to definitely keep in mind - but I think people don't really realize how relatively irrelevant this is. Another thing is that even if we did experience some catastrophic kessler syndrome level event it would mostly have no impact on things going through LEO (and not orbiting within it) simply because the massiveness of space just means the odds of an impact are so very low. So it would not kill space travel as the video states.

And lastly, necessity is the mother of all invention. There are an enormous number of viable ideas for removing debris from space. But there hasn't been that much of a push for them simply because it's not really necessary yet. If we reach a point when it becomes necessary, there are solutions.

So issue? Sure. "Massive" issue. Nah.

gnode4• 8 years ago

Maybe this is something which cheaper space-launch could solve. If it were economical to send maintenance robots to fix dead satellites, then perhaps these tiny satellites could be allowed to self-track (using GPS). In the event that the satellite fails it could be repaired / collected / de-orbited before its orbit deviates too far from nominal.

djrogers2• 8 years ago

perhaps these tiny satellites could be allowed to self-track (using GPS)

Not so sure GPS would work well up in space, given that the signals are aimed down at the planet's surface.

dswiese• 8 years ago

Is anyone surprised a startup ignored the ruling of a regulatory body and did what they wanted anyways?

reaperducer• 8 years ago

But... but... but... being "disruptive" is a good thing!

Move fast and break [laws]. It's the SV way.

mfoy_2• 8 years ago

"Move fast and break things" is a problematic motto if it applies equally to your product and work culture.

stcredzero• 8 years ago

Move Fast and Start a Kessler Syndrome Cascade?

ixtli• 8 years ago

Move fast and break other people's safety.

bigiain• 8 years ago

"Uber, but for space trash!"

(A herd of 2nd tier VC's are now breaking FCC laws throwing money at orbital velocities vaguely in the direction of some random Starbucks in SOMA...)

Bizarro• 8 years ago

Challenging power that might or might not be legitimate or have jurisdiction is prudent and responsible.

Claiming random regulatory body has a "ruling" just because some guys typed something into a document isn't responsible.

testplzignore• 8 years ago

Regulating launches is a losing battle. If someone wants to put something into space, they'll just go to a country without regulations. And for cases like this where a US company does it, the company will just move elsewhere, or have a subsidiary or contractor "own" the satellite.

I don't see how the FCC even has jurisdiction over this. I guess they have jurisdiction over communications with satellites within the US, but not over the satellites themselves. And practically speaking, they have no enforcement capabilities in this realm.

JumpCrisscross8• 8 years ago

Regulating launches is a losing battle. If someone wants to put something into space, they'll just go to a country without regulations.

There aren't that many countries launching commercial payloads, none who will do so in violation of ITU rules.

they have no enforcement capabilities in this realm

The ITU has enforcement mechanisms. Rogue satellites are a threat to astronauts, every country's space infrastructure and future launches.

Furthermore, Swarm is an American company breaking American law. Normal law enforcement vectors are available.

craftyguy2• 8 years ago

none who will do so in violation of ITU rules.

I bet North Korea doesn't give a shit about the ITU rules.

throwawayjava4• 8 years ago

Regulating launches is a losing battle

1. Why?

2. What's a better alternative? Shooting stuff out of LEO with lasers...?

the company will just move elsewhere, or have a subsidiary or contractor "own" the satellite.

So what? Those things are only magic check-mate cards if the government lets them be. And... why the hell should any government let them be?

And practically speaking, they have no enforcement capabilities in this realm.

We can't bring people back to life, but that doesn't mean that a country can't punish people for murder the moment they step foot inside that country's borders.

greglindahl4• 8 years ago

What country has launchers and a disdain for space debris regulations? I don't think there are any.

IAmEveryone• 8 years ago

The Outer Space Treaty sets the rules for (this) space. All countries with launch capabilities (and many others) are signatories. Each country administers the rules by delegating to some agency. This happens to be the FCC in the case of the US.

gnode4• 8 years ago

they'll just go to a country without regulations

There may be some amount of regulatory tourism, but I don't think any countries for some time will be havens. All the countries with a commercial spaceflight industry have a vested interest in not creating a debris cascade.

bsder2• 8 years ago

I don't see how the FCC even has jurisdiction over this. I guess they have jurisdiction over communications with satellites within the US, but not over the satellites themselves. And practically speaking, they have no enforcement capabilities in this realm.

They have jurisdiction because they have historically had jurisdiction. If not the FCC, then some other agency would do it.

And methinks you underestimate the enforcement capability of any US government agency. They can simply ban people, companies or countries from doing business with the US government. For something like an aerospace business, no US government business means bankruptcy.

And that's just to start. This can escalate into things like export restrictions, restricted countries, or munitions export controls. And once it's in the realm of munitions, the guys with guns can show up.

danesparza• 8 years ago

Hold on -- is the FCC an international body? I'm struggling to understand what Swarm did wrong here -- they launched from an INDIAN launcher after they didn't get permission to launch in the USA.

Seriously -- what power does the FCC hope to exert at this point? We live in a world where launchers exist in other countries ...

kingbirdy• 8 years ago

They're an American company, they follow American laws, including FCC regulations

criddell• 8 years ago

So, would an American company selling Kinder Eggs in Poland be in trouble for breaking FDA regulations?

throwawayjava4• 8 years ago

Hold on -- is the FCC an international body?

Do all employees of Swarm live in international waters?

JumpCrisscross8• 8 years ago

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.

jessriedel2• 8 years ago

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

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

kelnos• 8 years ago

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-...

jonathlee• 8 years ago

According to the Outer Space Treaty (1967), which is still current international law and of which the USA is a signatory, the LAUNCHING STATE is the responsible party. The FCC is overstepping its bounds here.

This is just a company doing what any good company would do, shopping around for the best venue/set of rules for it's business. That's why companies physically located in Illinois or California incorporate in Maryland. Since India was willing to take responsibility for the launch, the USA (and FCC) is just out of the picture.

recharged95• 8 years ago

A. Swarm did what was necessary with the current state of law. It's in the spirit so I say they get a pass. Safety amongst other spacecraft is separate issue.

B. FCC will try to go overbounds--there's no law stopping them too.

Quid Pro Quo is all I have to say aside from it's exciting there's a DIY spacecraft community!

greglindahl4• 8 years ago

Both India and Spaceflight Industries agree that they won't launch anything from the US without a US license. This is a company that lied to everyone involved.

krallja2• 8 years ago

Maryland

Delaware?

cryptonector• 8 years ago

That cannot exclude local enforcement.

Lazare• 8 years ago

I'm struggling to understand what Swarm did wrong here

They're a US company not following US law.

they launched from an INDIAN launcher

And? If it's illegal to, say, hack into your competitors servers and steal all their intellectual property, you don't get to mail a server to somewhere with weak IP laws, and then do all the theft.

Seriously -- what power does the FCC hope to exert at this point?

Well, they can fine the hell out of Swarm (as the article explicitly states, so I'm not sure why you seem confused on this point)! That's what US regulators do when US companies violate US regulations, as (apparently) happened here.

We live in a world where launchers exist in other countries

That doesn't do you much good if you aren't in the other country. If they wanted to not follow US laws, they probably should have moved somewhere else first.

scientician• 8 years ago

If it's illegal to, say, hack into your competitors servers and steal all their intellectual property, you don't get to mail a server to somewhere with weak IP laws, and then do all the theft.

Wait, why not?

mfoy_2• 8 years ago

Obligatory plug for Planetes, a great sci-fi story about space debris.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes)

gesman• 8 years ago

I'm with FCC on this.

We don't need more garbage in space. Enough of this in the oceans.

ovrdrv32• 8 years ago

As a naive bystander, can you please explain why it would be bad to "pollute" space? Do things fall back into the atmosphere and burn up and sprinkle ash back onto the earth? I thought that objects once past the gravitational pull of the earth will just continue to drift away into the nothingness of space, and no matter the volume, it would be an insignificant amount to cause any harm to our planet or view of the stars.

evgen• 8 years ago

Where do you think the "gravitational pull of the earth" ends? Hint: the moon is inside the gravitational pull of the earth... The danger is that things in orbit have velocity. A lot of velocity. Taking that nice F=mv^2 equation in mind you can imagine what would happen if a piece of space junk were to hit something we care about (or hit something we don't care about and create a lot more little pieces of junk that are now spreading out to cause more mayhem.) Space is big, and earth orbit is also a very big place, but there is still a lot of junk whizzing around up there and increasing the odds that something you forgot about will hit something you care about is counter-productive.

JumpCrisscross8• 8 years ago

can you please explain why it would be bad to "pollute" space? Do things fall back into the atmosphere and burn up and sprinkle ash back onto the earth?

The risk of space junk falling on people is tiny. The chief concern is around collisions in orbit. Worst case: "collisions between objects could cause a cascade where each collision generates space debris that increases the likelihood of further collisions," which could create a "distribution of debris in orbit [that] could render space activities and the use of satellites in specific orbital ranges unfeasible for many generations" [1].

These regulations are about protecting affordable access to space, by managing the risk of collisions.

(Eventually, yes, most things will fall down or burn up or drift away. But that process can take years if not millennia.)

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

dtech• 8 years ago

Objects can stay in orbit for a long time and become dangerous for other objects there. Look up Kessler Syndrome.

andrewaylett• 8 years ago

Generally, because the debris might hit other stuff and break it.

Space is big, but too much stuff goes into very similar orbits.

awat• 8 years ago

I’am positive someone expressed that exact sentiment about the ocean at some point. I had a Botany professor who always used to say “there is no such place as away”.

shostack• 8 years ago

One of my favorite "slice of life" anime series out there is PlanetES[1]

It does a great job of illustrating the potential impact of this on humanity in the not too distant future, and some of the jobs it creates (space trash collectors).

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

baobrien2• 8 years ago

Things don't really leave the gravitational pull of the earth -- it's still on the order of 9m/s^2 in low earth orbit. In order for things to stay up, they've got to be moving around 9 km/s sideways -- essentially constantly falling towards earth, but going fast enough sideways to miss.

The issue is that at those speeds, anything bigger than a fleck of paint hitting anything else will turn both things into a bunch of tiny chunks. See [1] for an example of two satellites colliding.

The big fear is that if you get enough stuff up there, even if you control most of it, one collision would be enough to trigger a chain reaction. [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

jklinger4104• 8 years ago

Space and oceans are not at all similar.

nikofeyn• 8 years ago

okay, but what is your point?

outworlder3• 8 years ago

These are tiny 10cm nanosattelites. In a low earth orbit they will be slowed down by drag and reenter quickly.

What is the concern?

api• 8 years ago

The concern is the precedent. If we let people just put up anything we could end up with (worst case) Kessler syndrome.

tezzer• 8 years ago

The concern, as expressed by the FCC, is that the satellites are so small they are hard for U.S. Space Command to track them. Which means we could approve a rocket launch where one of these rapid little beasties knocks out a window or causes other catastrophic damage because we didn't know where it was precisely.

And you could argue it's too small to do damage (not true) or to low to be a real concern (maybe true), but the precedent is dangerous to allow.

saalweachter• 8 years ago

The great thing about small satellites is that they are light and cheap and easy to launch. However, once they get to space, they take up just as much room as everything else: one orbit. Space isn’t a parking lot where you can park the smaller things closer together, and not being able to track the small satellites just makes that problem worse.

zelon882• 8 years ago

I'm inclined to agree with those who think the FCC is overstepping it's boundaries, although I understand the logic of those who explain why they're not overstepping their boundaries.

To me it seems to be a question of capability. America in this situation sounds like a skrawny lifeguard yelling at big burly surfer dudes to stay out of the deep end. We want the authority to regulate across borders and to maintain our margin of superiority, but do we have that ability? If we don't have the ability to lead this industry, we shouldn't be granted the authority to regulate it either. At least not globally from within a vacuum.

If America wants to regulate what other countries put into space, maybe we should have enough of a presence in space to be an authority figure.

I haven't seen the U.S. government put a fair proportion of their effort into space technology in decades, yet we still expect to be the global harbinger of regulation. If a private company can make a 5cm X 5cm X 5cm satellite and we can't track it maybe the responsibility should be on us to improve our tracking abilities rather than sangbaggging everyone else to support our faux superiority.

JumpCrisscross8• 8 years ago

We want the authority to regulate across borders

A U.S. regulator regulating an American satellite, made in America by American engineers working for an American company, whose orbital damages are the liability of the American taxpayer, is being too internationally ambitious?

I haven't seen the U.S. government put a fair proportion of their effort into space technology in decades

We're the largest backers of the ISS, have the largest civil and military launch industries, have the largest concentration of private launch and satellite companies and are one of a handful of countries in the world with a civil space agency.

Literally yesterday, a reusable American rocket (the only of its kind on the planet) put a NASA exoplanet survey satellite into orbit [1].

[1] https://tess.gsfc.nasa.gov

zelon882• 8 years ago

We're the largest backers of the ISS, have the largest civil and military launch industries, have the largest concentration of private launch and satellite companies and are one of a handful of countries in the world with a civil space agency.

And while we're #1 in overall spending we're second to Russia in terms of percentage of GDP. Considering our military budget is more than the next 10x countries combined and considering we pay into that budget regardless of our GDP I'd say we're putting in minimal effort. You're also giving credit to the US government for research, engineering, and labor that was done by private industry. That's where this problem becomes a problem.

Our government can't keep up with private innovation. We've got a car company who can make a car that gets 120 MPG but the DOT won't let it through the red tape because their required emissions testing equipment isn't sensitive enough to read it's emissions. So you deny the car and tell the company to come back with a shittier one they can read.

So instead of letting innovation happen, we're going to stifle it because we, ourselves, don't want to do our part to regulate it properly and in a timely fashion.

A U.S. regulator regulating an American satellite, made in America by American engineers working for an American company, whose orbital damages are the liability of the American taxpayer, is being too internationally ambitious?

So when your private sector tech outpaces your public sector's ability to regulate it you just disallow advanced technology and keep regulating the same way you've always done? That sounds exceedingly bureaucratic.

tdb7893• 8 years ago

This isn't America regulating space and ignoring other countries. This is America complying with existing international treaties regarding space.

exabrial• 8 years ago

This is incredibly reckless of the company. Objects this small present a danger to human flight in space because we can't track them with Radar. I hope they are fined into the ground and I hope no one is injured as a result of their intentionally brash actions.

chiefalchemist3• 8 years ago

Lots of great thoughts / comments. I'm stuck trying to figure out how no one at Swarm knew (or cared?) about the size requirement. It's seems like it should be obvious / common knowledge.

Am I missing something?

fuscy• 8 years ago

They can track things bigger than 10 cm and yet they somehow misplaced the classified military satellite delivered by SpaceX.

apple4ever• 8 years ago

Ban the FCC.

FCC Issues Warning in Wake of Swarm's Unauthorized Launch

Related Stories