Connect with us

News

Startup fined $900k for launching illegal satellites, points to future space law challenges

Published

7 years ago

on

Swarm Technologies, Inc., a satellite startup aiming to create the world’s lowest-cost satellite network, has been fined $900,000 by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for illegally launching and deploying four unauthorized satellites into orbit in January 2018 on a commercial Indian satellite launch vehicle. The satellites in question were Swarm’s SpaceBEE vehicles, which measure one quarter the size of a traditional CubeSat, a class of small satellites measuring 10 cm in height, width, and depth. In December 2017, the FCC deemed the SpaceBEE size too small for the U.S. Air Force’s traditional technology to track with routine methods and declined a license, but the satellites were placed into orbit regardless. With satellite and rocket launch startups proliferating as space access becomes more affordable, the debate over ensuring safety in this international arena is likely expand.

Swarm requested an experimental license from the FCC in April 2017, a first step for any satellite operator to ensure compliance with current international space laws, and their plan was to launch in September 2017, although that date was later delayed. Spaceflight Industries was next hired to connect Swarm with a launch provider and ensure its integration with the rest of the rocket’s payload. After the FCC declined the license in December 2017, Swarm applied for a new license in January 2018 for satellites meeting CubeSat specifications, but the original SpaceBEEs were already loaded onto the contracted Indian Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) and subsequently launched on January 12, 2018.

When news of the SpaceBEE deployment broke, concerns over regulatory backlash spread throughout the satellite community. The FCC issued an Enforcement Advisory on April 12, 2018 warning about consequences for communications companies failing to comply with licensing requirements, including a note to launch providers on how launch activities may be impacted if an unauthorized satellite payload needs to be removed. In a decision released December 20, 2018, Swarm Technologies was ordered to pay the fine and implement a five-year compliance plan.

A depiction of Swarm’s SpaceBEE satellites, from their FCC license application. | Credit: Swarm Technologies/FCC

Since the very first satellite was successfully launched by the Soviet Union on October 4, 1957, activities in space have been largely conducted by national governments and companies affiliated with them. However, the new space era is quickly changing that environment, rapidly opening up the beyond-Earth domain to private citizens. Billionaires like Elon Musk of Tesla and SpaceX, Jeff Bezos of Amazon and Blue Origin, and Richard Branson of Virgin and Virgin Galactic have mostly been the face of private/commercial space industry in recent years, but the technologies they’ve developed are also ushering in a new wave of affordable access to space, and with it, new technologies that don’t fit the traditional mold of “old space”.

The legal foundation for current space laws is the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, i.e., the “Outer Space Treaty”. Under this Treaty and subsequent treaties and laws arising from it, states, or nations, rather, are responsible for any space activities conducted by their own nationals, meaning a regulatory process that must be enforced. Where access to space was once expensive and difficult, the significantly lowered threshold has brought in a field full of players ready to take their shot at participating in the coming space economy and maybe, as seen with Swarm Technologies, even take a few risks to get there.

Advertisement

While the illegal launch of Swarm’s satellites was caught rather quickly (first by the community of amateur space trackers) and action was taken to penalize it, what’s to stop nations in the future from lowering standards to attract private customers? As stated in the FCC’s Enforcement Advisory, “Satellites authorized by an administration other than the United States do not require any FCC approval if Earth station operations are exclusively outside the United States.” Pressure from the international community to comply with treaties will only work to the extent that 1) the penalties deter the profit potential from the industry; 2) the international community agrees the activity is actually unsafe; and 3) the resistance to reforming regulations to permit the activity in question is deemed justified. Innovation, especially out of Silicon Valley, has a history of breaking rules to bring about significant change; however, some would argue that space isn’t the place for that approach.

The thrice-flown, Falcon 9 Block 5 rocket that put Swarm’s recent 3 satellites in orbit (all FCC approved): SpaceBEE-5, 6, and 7. | Credit: Pauline Acalin

The problem seems to be a simple matter of ethics: Don’t launch things into space that aren’t safe for Earth’s occupants. But according to the FCC, Swarm’s proposed satellites were merely “below the size threshold at which detection by the Space Surveillance Network (SSN) can be considered routine.” The licensing issue seemed to generally only be safety-related because of the satellites’ irregularity, not from the lack of actual tracking capability, something that is only going to increase as more players enter the new space arena.

Another point worth consideration is that Swarm’s SpaceBEE satellites are actually trackable using the same SSN network the FCC cited in its rejection of Swarm’s license request, and live tracking is ongoing via an independent tracking service called LeoLabs. According to Dr. Sara Spangelo, one of the co-founders of Swarm Technologies, the satellites are equipped with radar retro-reflector technology, something developed by a US-Navy research and development lab, which makes their radar signature as bright as a CubeSat. The FCC has also granted the company a temporary experimental authorization to test the previously-illegal satellites’ orbital and tracking data. Thus, the question for the future is not so much whether the safety concerns are valid, but whether preventative rules will be waived where newer technology can demonstrate their compliance outside traditional standards.

Advertisement
Related Topics:

Accidental computer geek, fascinated by most history and the multiplanetary future on its way. Quite keen on the democratization of space. | It's pronounced day-sha, but I answer to almost any variation thereof.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Tesla Optimus Gen 3 is coming to the Tesla Diner with new ambitions

Tesla’s Optimus robot left the Hollywood Diner within months of opening. Now Musk is planning its return with a bigger role and a major Gen 3 upgrade underway.

Published

2 hours ago

on

March 30, 2026

By

Tesla Optimus Gen 3 [Credit: Tesla]

Tesla’s Optimus robot was one of the most talked-about features when the Tesla Diner opened on Santa Monica Boulevard in Hollywood on July 21, 2025. Dubbed “Poptimus” by Tesla fans, the Gen 2 robot stood upstairs at the retro-futuristic, drive-in theater and Tesla Supercharging station, scooping popcorn into bags and handing them to guests with a wave.

The diner itself had been years in the making. Elon Musk first floated the idea in 2018 with a tweet about building an “old-school drive-in, roller skates & rock restaurant” at a Hollywood Supercharger. What eventually opened was a unique two-story neon-lit space, with 80 EV charging stalls, and Optimus serving as a live demonstration of where Tesla’s ambitions were headed.


But Optimus did not stay long, and was gone by December 2025.

Now, the robot is set to return with a more demanding job. Musk has ambitions for Optimus to take on a food runner role in 2026, delivering meals directly to cars at the Supercharger stalls. While the latest Gen 3 Optimus is likely to initially take on its previous popcorn-serving role, it wouldn’t be out of the question for Optimus to see a quick promotion. With improved  hand dexterity that features 50 total actuators and 22 degrees of freedom per hand, and significantly more powerful processing through Tesla’s latest AI5 chip that includes Grok-powered voice interaction, Musk described Optimus at the Abundance Summit on March 12, 2026, as “by far the most advanced robot in the world, Nothing’s even close.”

That confidence is backed by a major manufacturing shift. At the Q4 2025 earnings call in January, Musk announced Tesla would discontinue the Model S and Model X and convert those Fremont production lines to build Optimus. “It’s time to basically bring the Model S and X programs to an end,” he said, calling for a pivot that reflects where the Tesla’s future lies.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Musk forces Judge’s exit from shareholder battles over viral social media slip-up

McCormick insisted in a court filing that she harbors no actual bias against Musk or the defendants. She claimed she either never clicked the “support” button, LinkedIn’s version of a “like,” or did so accidentally.

Published

6 hours ago

on

March 30, 2026

By

(Credit: Tesla)

Many Tesla fans are familiar with the name Kathaleen McCormick, especially if they are investors in the company.

McCormick is a Delaware Chancery Court Judge who presided over Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s pay package lawsuit over the past few years, as well as his purchase of Twitter. However, she will no longer be sitting in on any issues related to Musk.

Elon Musk demands Delaware Judge recuse herself after ‘support’ post celebrating $2B court loss

In a rare admission of potential optics issues in one of America’s most powerful corporate courts, Delaware Chancery Court Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick stepped aside Monday from a cluster of shareholder lawsuits targeting Elon Musk and Tesla’s board.

Advertisement

The move came just days after Musk’s legal team highlighted her apparent “support” on LinkedIn for a post that mocked the billionaire over his 2022 tweets about the $44 billion Twitter acquisition.

McCormick insisted in a court filing that she harbors no actual bias against Musk or the defendants. She claimed she either never clicked the “support” button, LinkedIn’s version of a “like,” or did so accidentally.

She wrote in a newly published memo from the Delaware Chancery Court:

“The motion for recusal rests on a false premise — that I support a LinkedIn post about Mr. Musk, which I do not in fact support. I am not biased against the defendants in these actions.”

Advertisement

Yet she granted the reassignment anyway, acknowledging that the intense media scrutiny surrounding her involvement had become “detrimental to the administration of justice.”

The consolidated cases will now be handled by three of her colleagues on the Delaware Court of Chancery, the nation’s go-to venue for high-stakes corporate disputes. The lawsuits accuse Musk and Tesla directors of breaching fiduciary duties through lavish executive compensation and lax governance oversight.

One prominent claim, filed by a Detroit pension fund, challenges massive stock awards granted to board members, alleging the payouts harmed the company. The litigation also overlaps with issues stemming from Musk’s turbulent 2022 Twitter purchase.

McCormick’s history with Musk made her a lightning rod. In 2022, she presided over the fast-tracked lawsuit that ultimately forced Musk to complete the Twitter deal after he tried to back out.

Advertisement

Then in 2024, she struck down his record $56 billion Tesla compensation package, ruling the approval process was flawed and overly CEO-friendly. The Delaware Supreme Court later reinstated the pay on technical grounds, but the ruling fueled Musk’s long-standing criticism of the state’s judiciary.

Musk has repeatedly urged companies to reincorporate elsewhere, arguing Delaware courts have grown hostile to visionary leaders. Monday’s recusal hands him a symbolic victory and underscores how personal social-media activity can collide with judicial impartiality standards.

Delaware law requires judges to step aside if there’s even a “reasonable basis” to question their neutrality.

Court watchers say the episode highlights growing tensions in corporate America’s legal epicenter. While McCormick maintained her impartiality, the appearance of bias proved too costly to ignore. The cases will proceed without her, but the broader debate over Delaware’s dominance in business litigation is far from over.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk has generous TSA offer denied by the White House: here’s why

Musk stepped in on March 21 via a post on X, writing: “I would like to offer to pay the salaries of TSA personnel during this funding impasse that is negatively affecting the lives of so many Americans at airports throughout the country.”

Published

8 hours ago

on

March 30, 2026

By

Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk made a generous offer to pay the salaries of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees last week, but the offer was denied by the White House.

In a striking display of private-sector initiative clashing with federal bureaucracy, the White House has turned down an offer from Elon Musk to personally cover the salaries of TSA officers amid an ongoing partial government shutdown. The rejection, reported last Wednesday by multiple outlets, highlights the legal and political hurdles facing unconventional solutions to Washington’s funding gridlock.

The impasse began weeks ago when Congress failed to pass funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), leaving TSA employees, essential workers who screen millions of travelers daily, without paychecks while still required to report for duty.

Frustrated travelers have endured record-long security lines at major airports, with reports of chaos and delays rippling across the country.

Advertisement

Musk stepped in on March 21 via a post on X, writing: “I would like to offer to pay the salaries of TSA personnel during this funding impasse that is negatively affecting the lives of so many Americans at airports throughout the country.”

But it was not for no reason.

Advertisement

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson responded on behalf of the Trump administration, expressing appreciation for Musk’s gesture.

However, the legal obstacles, which would be insurmountable, would inhibit Musk from doing so. Jackson said:

“We greatly appreciate Elon’s generous offer. This would pose great legal challenges due to his involvement with federal government contracts.”

Musk’s companies hold significant federal contracts, including NASA launches through SpaceX and potential Defense Department work, raising concerns about conflicts of interest, ethics rules, and anti-bribery statutes that prohibit private payments to government employees. Administration officials also indicated they expect the shutdown to end soon, making external funding unnecessary.

Advertisement

The episode underscores deeper tensions in Washington. Musk, who has advised on government efficiency efforts and maintains a close relationship with President Trump, has frequently criticized wasteful spending and bureaucratic delays.

His offer came as airport security lines ballooned, drawing public frustration toward both parties. TSA officers, many of whom rely on paychecks to cover mortgages and family expenses, have continued working without compensation, a situation that has drawn bipartisan concern but little immediate resolution.

Critics of the rejection argue it prioritizes red tape over practical relief for frontline workers and travelers. Supporters of the White House position counter that allowing private funding sets a dangerous precedent and could undermine congressional authority over the budget.

The White House eventually came to terms with the TSA on Friday and started paying them once again, and lines at airports instantly shrank.  The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said that TSA staf would begin receiving paychecks “as early as” today.

Advertisement
Continue Reading