# Could California launch "its own damn satellite"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 15, 2016, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-launch-its-own-damn-satellite/774789 "2016-12-15T17:15:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-launch-its-own-damn-satellite/774789/21 "2016-12-15T21:42:17Z")
> [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > The other way around. For global Earth monitoring, you probably want a sun synchronous low polar orbit. Those usually launch from Vandenberg. It depends on the specific mission requirements of the observation mission. For instance, the [Cyclone Global Navigation Satellite System (CYGNSS)](https://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CYGNSS_508.pdf) is launched at a ~35° azimuth. Sun synch orbits are good for collecting information on a daily basis, but if you want longer term climate data at specified intervals, or regualr observation of dynamic climate events you may want a different orbital configuration. > [@usedtobe](#): > > I’d bet that Mr. Musk, if push came to shove, could figure out how to friggin’ _Launch_ from SpaceX’s Pacific barge and land on the Atlantic barge. > > Or ship a rocket down to French Guyana with a note: Please insert attached satellite into the following orbit: … > (this is where the Ariana family takes flight) This doesn’t even make sense. Even if overflight of CONUS were permitted, Falcon 9 Stage 1 can’t fly from Pacific to Atlantic, unless they were flying across Panama. And US launch providers are required to get FAA commercial approval even if launching from a foreign site. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-launch-its-own-damn-satellite/774789/22 "2016-12-15T21:49:37Z")
There are even commercially-available submarine launches, from what used to be Russian ballistic missile subs. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-launch-its-own-damn-satellite/774789/23 "2016-12-15T22:26:07Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > [snip] … And US launch providers are required to get FAA commercial approval even if launching from a foreign site. > > Stranger Why would the FAA have jurisdiction in Chinese airspace … do you mean State Department approval for commercial activities in foreign countries? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-launch-its-own-damn-satellite/774789/24 "2016-12-15T22:28:15Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > Governor Brown clearly doesn’t understand either the cost or logistical considerations involved in California alone trying to maintain an Earth surveillance system, and it would probably make sense to ‘team’ with ESA or JAXA to provide both additional funding and technical capability as well as international launch locations I think you’re reading too much into a one-sentence quip, and that his statement doesn’t necessarily exclude a partnership of some kind. The context was just that California can have its own earth science program independent of NASA or the Feds. He didn’t say that it would be launched from California soil, or that it would be literally constructed only by Californians, or that it would be solely funded by California. > [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > A CubeSat or similar smallsat can be developed for a few million dollars Much less than that, as long as it doesn’t do much. Including launch, our first cubesat cost \<$250k. Launch was about $85k including ISS deployment. Our second one–which didn’t make orbit–was just a few tens of $k. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-launch-its-own-damn-satellite/774789/25 "2016-12-15T22:51:28Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > There are even commercially-available submarine launches, from what used to be Russian ballistic missile subs. The _Shtil_ launcher, which can launch up to 160 kg to 200 km x 79° or 80 kg to 600 km x 79°, albeit with some very high launch dynamic environments that are hard on conventional satellites. It would not be a suitable launcher for a MEO Earth climate surveillance medium satellite. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-launch-its-own-damn-satellite/774789/26 "2016-12-15T23:10:26Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Why would the FAA have jurisdiction in Chinese airspace … do you mean State Department approval for commercial activities in foreign countries? Not State Department; Federal Aviation Administration licensing for launches by US flag companies even if operating on foriegn launch facilities, the intent being preventing US companies from circumventing safety or liability just by offshoring their launch. That is part of what has kept SpaceX launching from the US rather than a geographically preferable site. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Much less than that, as long as it doesn’t do much. Including launch, our first cubesat cost \<$250k. Launch was about $85k including ISS deployment. Our second one–which didn’t make orbit–was just a few tens of $k. I’m referring to a 6U or larger sats that are capable of carrying and powering larger and more complex scientific instrumentation. Although the cheaper 2U and 3U forms can be developed quickly and inexpensively using the higher risk build-fly-learn approach, the capabilities and lifespan of such systems are pretty limited. They are mostly useful in the context of single function missions or in flock configurations of collecting masses of lower fidelity data and get cheap or free rides as secondary payloads, and aren’t really capable of meeting even the minimum requirements for NOAA type climate and weather surveillance missions. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-launch-its-own-damn-satellite/774789/27 "2016-12-16T00:01:44Z")
Will trump also shut down, or block access to, the ESA satellites? While the individual sovereign countries make world travel a hassle, it does have some advantages. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-launch-its-own-damn-satellite/774789/28 "2016-12-16T00:29:14Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > Not State Department; Federal Aviation Administration licensing for launches by US flag companies even if operating on foriegn launch facilities, the intent being preventing US companies from circumventing safety or liability just by offshoring their launch. That is part of what has kept SpaceX launching from the US rather than a geographically preferable site … [snip] Ah … makes sense … I don’t think the State Government of California would be able to fly the Panamanian flag … but then again this is what kept SpaceX inside the US, it would also keep California in the US for her launches … she just has to follow the same rules as SpaceX … Might be cheapest for The Donald to just let California pay for the existing program … ---
**Author:** ![Dobbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Dobbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dobbs)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-launch-its-own-damn-satellite/774789/29 "2016-12-16T05:03:54Z")
> [@wevets](#): > > Why would he care what launch contracts the Air Force enters into? Has any President in the past ever stopped the Air Force from signing a launch contract? > > And even if he did care, what’s to stop California from using Kourou in the French Guiana or Baikonur in Kazakhstan? Neither of those launch facilities are purely government-use only either. > > No, **Stranger on a Train** has it right - a launch facility is the least of the barriers to California launching a satellite - and the real barrier is cost of construction of the satellite and monitoring system. It would make a lot more sense for California to simply partner with the European Space Agency on existing Earth observation missions like Envisat. I don’t disagree with any particular point you raise. But, **if** Trump tells NASA ‘no climate change research’, and **if** CA says ‘we’ll do it ourselves and we’ll do it from VAFB’, Trump **could** say ‘not from my AFB’, and he could make it stick. I am not claiming I can predict what Trump will do, and think that any one who does is silly. Yes, CA could build, or cause to be built, a bird, and yes, they could get it into orbit, by a coupla different paths. The only barrier is money, something they don’t have a lot of sitting around waiting for a use. But if, for some reason, they want to do it all in state, Trump can make it a little more expensive. ---
**Author:** ![Isilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@Isilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isilder)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-launch-its-own-damn-satellite/774789/30 "2016-12-16T12:08:17Z")
More to the point, the federal government doesn’t want a state to spend its revenue on wasteful projects and then ask for federal grants to do proper state work. states therefore tend to focus on the typical state issues on the ground and not go all extraterritorial… Any one satellite must always be useful to many states and it would not be politic to just go and do something for themselves, they’d have difficulty getting approvals from the feds, and even if they went international, to bypass FAA approval or something, that wouldn’t work, but even if they were simply buying an already launched satellite … there’d be a federal law … quickly… what I mean is the current lack of law is just because states don’t do this. There is no need for a law because it just doesn’t happen. The lack of a law doesn’t mean that the feds wouldn’t create it … they could easily create it if they had a trigger to create it. , satellites being telecommunication and aviation and environmental… fed power… For example, if a state launched its own satellite because the federal service was too expensive… competition ? nope, state you can’t do that ! ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-launch-its-own-damn-satellite/774789/31 "2016-12-16T12:56:24Z")
> [@Dobbs](#): > > Yah, but Trump is going to be the boss of the Air Force, and if he says no to NASA, he isn’t likely to let you use his base. They could launch (if the site was the only consideration) from New Mexico. Spaceport America would love to have the business. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-launch-its-own-damn-satellite/774789/32 "2016-12-16T15:32:44Z")
As an aside, wasn’t this the same issue that earned Brown the nickname of “Governor Moonbeam” decades ago? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-launch-its-own-damn-satellite/774789/33 "2016-12-16T17:17:54Z")
> [@Isilder](#): > > More to the point, the federal government doesn’t want a state to spend its revenue on wasteful projects and then ask for federal grants to do proper state work. > > states therefore tend to focus on the typical state issues on the ground and not go all extraterritorial… > > Any one satellite must always be useful to many states and it would not be politic to just go and do something for themselves, they’d have difficulty getting approvals from the feds, and even if they went international, to bypass FAA approval or something, that wouldn’t work, but even if they were simply buying an already launched satellite … there’d be a federal law … quickly… what I mean is the current lack of law is just because states don’t do this. There is no need for a law because it just doesn’t happen. The lack of a law doesn’t mean that the feds wouldn’t create it … they could easily create it if they had a trigger to create it. , satellites being telecommunication and aviation and environmental… fed power… For example, if a state launched its own satellite because the federal service was too expensive… competition ? nope, state you can’t do that ! Do you have a cite for any of this? Plenty of state-funded universities have built satellites, although typically much smaller than what we are talking about here. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-launch-its-own-damn-satellite/774789/34 "2016-12-16T17:42:21Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > As an aside, wasn’t this the same issue that earned Brown the nickname of “Governor Moonbeam” decades ago? In part … it was more a general policy of intense McGovernik/commie/hippy liberalism … one of Moonbeam’s campaign planks when he ran for his third term was the promise to do everything opposite of what he did during his first two terms … ETA: Does the link in the OP reflect the first salvo of the 2020 Presidential campaign? Obviously this kind of rhetoric is a winning strategy, and Moonbeam is just the man to exploit this … ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-launch-its-own-damn-satellite/774789/35 "2016-12-16T18:03:23Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Do you have a cite for any of this? Plenty of state-funded universities have built satellites, although typically much smaller than what we are talking about here. I don’t know of any satellites completely build by a university in California, but the University of California system currently has its hands in the instrumentation/data processing/analysis on several satellites: > [@UC Berkeley Space Sciences Laboratory](#): > > Current Research Projects > > SSL instruments and detectors are currently operating on more than a dozen spacecraft in orbit, including the FUSE (Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopy Explorer), IMAGE (Imager for Magnetopause-to-Aurora Global Exploration), GALEX (Galaxy Evolution Explorer), and the MESSENGER mission to Mercury; the ISUAL (Imager for Sprites and Upper Atmospheric Lightning) instrument, Polar, Geotail and the four-spacecraft Cluster missions in Earth orbit; the Ulysses, Wind and SoHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) missions in orbit around the Sun, and the Mars Global Surveyor mission at Mars. The complete payloads of RHESSI (Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager), FAST (Fast Auroral SnapshoT), and the CHIPS (Cosmic Hot Interstellar Plasma Spectrometer) University Explorer were developed at SSL, and all of these spacecraft are being operated from SSL. > > Under development at SSL are detectors for HST COS (Hubble Space Telescope Cosmic Origins Spectrograph), the STEREO/IMPACT (Solar-TErrestrial RElations Observatory/In-situ Measurements of Particles and CME Transients) suite of instruments, and THEMIS (Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms), a 5 spacecraft Explorer Mission. SSL is studying an exciting new major space mission-SNAP (SuperNova Acceleration Probe), in collaboration with Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. From [Space Sciences Laboratory | Research UC Berkeley](http://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/research-unit/space-sciences-laboratory) One could imagine that if NASA lost interest in launching Earth observation missions in the future, SSL might do a similar kind of partnership with ESA to what it currently has with NASA, and it’s hard to imagine Congress delving into contract law to prevent the state from signing this type of contract - that might have unforeseen consequences on all sorts of contracts that are unrelated to the issue. The idea that California might completely build and launch its own satellite is a little silly. On the other hand, the idea that California might partner with foreign space science agencies like ESA or JAXA to do the type of science NASA might lose interest in doing is plausible, depending on the cost of contribution. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-launch-its-own-damn-satellite/774789/36 "2016-12-16T20:51:25Z")
Remember, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory is part of CalTech. You’d be hard-pressed to find any satellite that JPL _doesn’t_ have their hands in. (Yes, JPL is also part of NASA. Nothing says it has to be either/or.) ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-launch-its-own-damn-satellite/774789/37 "2016-12-16T21:51:36Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > …it is not possible to fly prograde trajectories from Vandenberg without overflying the continental United States, which would not render acceptable Expectation of Casualty (EC) estimations for FAA commerical flight certification. The only permissible launch trajectories from VAFB are polar and retrograde orbits, and even those can be restricted because of overflight situations. > > Setting aside trajectory issues, the federal government _could_ …[ital added] No matter what super-duper techno-business endeavors can be postulated, OP question comes up against its truly limiting answer, of course, and there are non-hypothetical answers currently on the books, despite what any voted-for referendum claims. As mentioned above, the final hammer comes from federal-state law. I clipped the quote from **Stranger** where, I believe, the strongest current national legal answer is presented. A single state acting “for its own purposes” has been slapped down throughout US history. I wonder what Constitutional issues could be brought to bear if it reaches the Supreme Court. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-launch-its-own-damn-satellite/774789/38 "2016-12-16T22:40:08Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > Governor Brown clearly doesn’t understand either the cost or logistical considerations involved in California alone trying to maintain an Earth surveillance system, and it would probably make sense to ‘team’ with ESA or JAXA to provide both additional funding and technical capability as well as international launch locations; JAXA in particular has a number of excellent sites for launching to a variety of orbital azimuths, as well the technical capabilities for space vehicle development and integration, as well as domestically produced launch vehicles. > > Stranger I’m sure you’re right–or maybe you just made a bunch of wild assumptions about what Brown’s intentions are. He literally just said “we’ll launch our own damn satellite.” All kinds of non-U.S. government entities put satellites in space all the time. I don’t remember where Brown said “we’re going to just launch it from California”, I don’t remember where he said “we’re going to make our own space agency and design one ourselves” or any of that. $100m is peanuts, literally peanuts, for a State the size of California. Considering that Republicans love public-private partnerships, and even under Democrats NASA has been pushing more towards that, I very seriously doubt if a State is willing to give $100m to some entity (maybe even some governmental one) to build out and launch a satellite that the Republicans are going to care. Especially if some private contractor gets to make money on the deal. Republicans would also be loathe to take such a big stand against state autonomy. For frame of reference _cities_ regularly pay for $400m sports venues, cities. California is a state of 39m people with a $2.5 trillion GDP. I see no reason to assume Governor Brown is proposing all kinds of crazy nonsense like doing all of it alone, _assuming he was serious at all_, California would cut a check and it’d be done. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-launch-its-own-damn-satellite/774789/39 "2016-12-16T22:42:20Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > No matter what super-duper techno-business endeavors can be postulated, OP question comes up against its truly limiting answer, of course, and there are non-hypothetical answers currently on the books, despite what any voted-for referendum claims. > > As mentioned above, the final hammer comes from federal-state law. I clipped the quote from **Stranger** where, I believe, the strongest current national legal answer is presented. > > A single state acting “for its own purposes” has been slapped down throughout US history. I wonder what Constitutional issues could be brought to bear if it reaches the Supreme Court. There’s literally nothing in American history that would suggest the Federal government has problems with state-lead initiatives, even ones that mirror Federal ones. The opposite, in fact, the Feds often push states to mirror Federal initiatives. For example all the states have some state level equivalent to the EPA, and they do a lot of the actual grunt work of enforcing environmental laws (and to get Federal grants, they even make sure that Federal laws are enforced, because they craft state regulations to comply with Federal laws and then enforce said regulations), many states would like to not even have such agencies, but there are carrot/stick methods the Federal government has used to cajole them into existence. If a state wanted to try and do some of the stuff NASA currently does in regard to earth or climate science it’s basically unimaginable the Federal government would take much of a position on it at all–particularly one ran by Republicans who love Federalism. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-launch-its-own-damn-satellite/774789/40 "2016-12-16T22:44:44Z")
> [@Isilder](#): > > More to the point, the federal government doesn’t want a state to spend its revenue on wasteful projects and then ask for federal grants to do proper state work. > > states therefore tend to focus on the typical state issues on the ground and not go all extraterritorial… > > Any one satellite must always be useful to many states and it would not be politic to just go and do something for themselves, they’d have difficulty getting approvals from the feds, and even if they went international, to bypass FAA approval or something, that wouldn’t work, but even if they were simply buying an already launched satellite … there’d be a federal law … quickly… what I mean is the current lack of law is just because states don’t do this. There is no need for a law because it just doesn’t happen. The lack of a law doesn’t mean that the feds wouldn’t create it … they could easily create it if they had a trigger to create it. , satellites being telecommunication and aviation and environmental… fed power… For example, if a state launched its own satellite because the federal service was too expensive… competition ? nope, state you can’t do that ! Excuse me? “Federal government doesn’t want a state to spend its revenue on wasteful projects.” I’ve never seen any such evidence. Further, we have a constitution, it entitles the States to largely do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t violate specific prohibitions in the U.S. Constitution, and as long as it doesn’t attempt to do something specifically reserved for the Federal government in the constitution (like conduct foreign policy, declare war, mint coins or etc.) On top of all that, we have a 240 year history in which States have often engaged in extremely wasteful endeavors, the only time the Feds have legitimate legal action in such cases is if State agencies are misspending Federal grant money, or doing things that put them out of compliance with laws that require compliance to receive Federal monies. Otherwise waste in State government isn’t the bailiwick of anyone in the Federal government, period. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-launch-its-own-damn-satellite/774789.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-california-launch-its-own-damn-satellite/774789.md?page=3)