Connect with us

News

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

Published

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.

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.

Advertisement
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.

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.

Comments

News

Tesla scores major court win as judge rejects race bias class action

The ruling means the 2017 lawsuit cannot proceed as a class action because plaintiff attorneys were unable to secure testimony commitments from at least 200 workers.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla scored a significant legal victory in California after a state judge reversed a class certification in a high-profile race harassment case involving 6,000 Black workers at its Fremont plant. The ruling means the 2017 lawsuit cannot proceed as a class action because plaintiff attorneys were unable to secure testimony commitments from at least 200 workers ahead of a 2026 trial, a threshold the judge viewed as necessary to reliably represent the full group.

No class action

In a late-Friday order, California Superior Court Judge Peter Borkon concluded that the suit could not remain a class action, stating he could not confidently apply the experiences of a much smaller group of testifying workers to thousands of potential class members. His ruling reverses a 2024 decision by a different judge who had certified the case under the belief that a trial of that size would be manageable, as noted in a Reuters report.

The lawsuit was originally filed by former assembly-line worker Marcus Vaughn, who alleged that Black employees at Tesla’s Fremont factory were exposed to various forms of racially hostile conduct, including slurs, graffiti, and instances of disturbing objects appearing in work areas. Tesla has previously said it does not tolerate harassment and has removed employees found responsible for misconduct. Neither Tesla nor the plaintiffs’ legal team immediately commented on the latest ruling.

Tesla’s legal challenges

Advertisement

While the decertification narrows the scope of this particular case, Tesla still faces additional litigation over similar allegations. A separate trial involving related claims brought by a California state civil rights agency is scheduled just two months after the now-vacated class trial date. The company is also contending with federal race discrimination claims filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alongside several individual lawsuits it has already resolved.

For now, the reversal removes the large-scale exposure Tesla would have faced in a unified class trial, shifting the dispute back to individual claims rather than a single mass action. The case is Vaughn v. Tesla, filed in Alameda County Superior Court.

@teslarati With a pedestrian in the crosswalk, Tesla Full Self-Driving shows off its courtesy. Human drivers? Not so much. #tesla #teslafsd #fullselfdriving ♬ AMERICAN HEART – Maxwell Luke
Continue Reading

News

Tesla Holiday Update is incoming, and the wishlist is Merry and Bright

There are a handful of big wishes, and we’ve seen a lot of different requests out there based on what owners are saying on social media. Nevertheless, what Tesla should bring and what Tesla will bring are two different things.

Published

on

Tesla’s Holiday Update is going to be on its way soon, and although we have no idea what the company is planning to implement into vehicles with the 2025 iteration.

However, the wishlist is extensive, and owners are hoping to get a vast array of new features, both useful and artificial. That’s the fun thing about owning a Tesla — not everything is necessary, and it’s okay for your car to be fun.

There are a handful of big wishes, and we’ve seen a lot of different requests out there based on what owners are saying on social media. Nevertheless, what Tesla should bring and what Tesla will bring are two different things.

In past years, Tesla has brought both useful things and fun things with the Holiday Update. The Custom Lock Sound, new Light Shows, and even High Fidelity Park Assist have all come in past updates, among many other things. But for 2025, people want even more, and here’s what we have seen most frequently thus far:

More Streaming Platforms

This is a personal request of ours, and it’s something that we feel is long overdue.

Sure, Netflix, Disney+, and Hulu are all great — but there’s a lot of meat left on that bone. HBOMax, Paramount+, and even YouTube TV would be a great option for those of us who have subscriptions and want to watch Live Events while Supercharging or eating in our cars.

The fact that Tesla has not added more platforms to its in-car Theater in a few years has been, dare I say, disappointing?

Full Self-Driving for Europe

This is something not even Santa can help with. Although his Elves are known for their high productivity, we’re not even sure they could convince European regulators to open the door for FSD’s entrance into the market.

Tesla deploys Unsupervised FSD in Europe for the first time—with a twist

FSD is definitely capable of handling European driving conditions, but regulators are truly dragging their feet through the mud with the approval process. Tesla has tested FSD in several countries in Europe, but nothing has been set in stone yet.

Deeper Grok Integration

Many owners have said something about how Grok is truly not super in-tune with the vehicles. This is something any owner will experience.

It seems Grok should be capable of handling all in-car requests; everything from changing the A/C to a specific temperature to adding a stop within the Navigation should be handled by Grok.

Instead, Grok cannot handle those things currently. You have to speak to the car itself using the microphone button on the steering wheel.

Interestingly, some vehicles already have the Grok logo replacing the microphone. It is likely the most realistic request of all.

‘Learn’ Mode for Full Self-Driving Arrival Options

Although it is great for public destinations, FSD still does not allow you to choose a set parking spot at your residence. It also does not allow you to choose preferences for parking in large parking lots.

Renters, and even those who live in purchased townhomes, often have assigned parking spots. Full Self-Driving v14 has done a great job of doing half the work, but there have been too many times when I’ve arrived home, the car pulls me into a spot, and I’m forced to manually back out and park in my assigned space.

Many people also do not like to park toward the entrance of a store, me included. Parking away from the front of a store eliminates parking congestion and usually is a safer bet for your vehicle to keep from being dinged by careless drivers who swing their doors open.

Navigation Adjustments

Sometimes you don’t want to turn left on the street the navigation chooses. Maybe you want to go a block down and check out that new Portuguese restaurant that just opened on the way to your next destination.

This is only possible currently by inputting a waypoint that would take you that way. Instead, the center screen could be opened, and the driver should be able to select an alternative route by simply touching a street they’d rather travel on.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla wins $508 price target from Stifel as Robotaxi rollout gains speed

The firm cited meaningful progress in Tesla’s robotaxi roadmap, ongoing Full Self-Driving enhancements, and the company’s long-term growth initiatives.

Published

on

Credit: Joe Tegtmeyer/X

Tesla received another round of bullish analyst updates this week, led by Stifel, raising its price target to $508 from $483 while reaffirming a “Buy” rating. The firm cited meaningful progress in Tesla’s robotaxi roadmap, ongoing Full Self-Driving enhancements, and the company’s long-term growth initiatives. 

Robotaxi rollout, FSD updates, and new affordable cars

Stifel expects Tesla’s robotaxi fleet to expand into 8–10 major metropolitan areas by the end of 2025, including Austin, where early deployments without safety drivers are targeted before year-end. Additional markets under evaluation include Nevada, Florida, and Arizona, as noted in an Investing.com report. The firm also highlighted strong early performance for FSD Version 14, with upcoming releases adding new “reasoning capabilities” designed to improve complex decision-making using full 360-degree vision.

Tesla has also taken steps to offset the loss of U.S. EV tax credits by launching the Model Y Standard and Model 3 Standard at $39,990 and $36,990, Stifel noted. Both vehicles deliver more than 300 miles of range and are positioned to sustain demand despite shifting incentives. Stifel raised its EBITDA forecasts to $14.9 billion for 2025 and $19.5 billion for 2026, assigning partial valuation weightings to Tesla’s FSD, robotaxi, and Optimus initiatives.

TD Cowen also places an optimistic price target

TD Cowen reiterated its Buy rating with a $509 price target after a research tour of Giga Texas, citing production scale and operational execution as key strengths. The firm posted its optimistic price target following a recent Mobility Bus tour in Austin. The tour included a visit to Giga Texas, which offered fresh insights into the company’s operations and prospects. 

Additional analyst movements include Truist Securities maintaining its Hold rating following shareholder approval of Elon Musk’s compensation plan, viewing the vote as reducing leadership uncertainty.

Advertisement
@teslarati Tesla Full Self-Driving yields for pedestrians while human drivers do not…the future is here! #tesla #teslafsd #fullselfdriving ♬ 2 Little 2 Late – Levi & Mario
Continue Reading

Trending