I would be concerned, too, since the Commerce Department demonstrated that they are not listening to the concerns of the industry or the public. Clearly, Commerce did not explain why they left in restrictions and conditions that concerned the industry, so no one knows why they are still in the draft proposal. Do they not care about public concerns, or do they not have reasonable explanations for keeping them in the proposal? Either way, it seems that expressing concerns is a fool’s errand.

I don’t know whether these updates came from the ridiculous complaint that came from the Earth in the background of the Tesla launch, last year, but I am seeing a whole new problem develop: I am allowed to photograph the Eiffel Tower or the Golden Gate Bridge without the owner’s permission or a 30-day advance notice to the government, but I can’t photograph space objects as freely? And I can’t use infra-red, ultraviolet, or radio frequencies? And what constitutes a space object, because the last I checked, the Moon was an object in space. So are the planets, asteroids, and stars. So much for Hubble, astronomy, and radio astronomy.

The article fails to inform us as to what the risks are that concerns NOAA. A high risk or low risk of what? A risk of photographing space debris or the Eiffel Tower without the owner’s permission or 30-day governmental notification? Collision with another space object? Radio frequency interference? Catching measles?