[jonathlee]

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.

[greglindahl]

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.

[Latteland]

but we think they launched from india. other comments suggest its an Indian decision about launching.

[simonh]

As the article points out, satellite operators are free to choose which nation's regulatory regime they launch under, but they do have to pick one.

If India freely made an agreement with the US to only launch FCC approved US satellites by US operators, that's India's choice. As it happens India didn't actually grant them a license to launch either, they just lied about having a US license, so technically they're probably in violation of Indian law as well or at least in breach of contract.

[krallja]

> Maryland

Delaware?

[cryptonector]

That cannot exclude local enforcement.

[recharged95]

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!