South Africa develops new space industry law and establishes regulator
Read more
TechCentral
techcentral.co.za

South Africa develops new space industry law and establishes regulator

South Africa's proposed new space law introduces a requirement to obtain a license from a new regulator for satellite construction, thereby expanding the scope of regulation of the local space industry compared to the 1993 law.

The draft South African Space Industry Regulation Bill, published by Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition Parks Tau in the Government Gazette on Friday, lists 'space object manufacturing' and 'use of space applications' among nine activities requiring permits. The remaining activities include launches, including suborbital ones, operation of satellites in orbit, management of launch sites and other space objects, as well as 'space exploration and utilization.'

Anyone engaging in one of these activities without the appropriate permit may face a fine or imprisonment of up to 10 years, or both penalties. However, the bill does not specify a maximum fine amount.

In contrast, the 1993 Space Act has a narrower scope. It requires licenses only for launches, operation of launch facilities, and participation of South African companies in space activities that entail international obligations or 'may affect national interests,' as well as for anything prescribed by the minister. Manufacturing is not included in its list. It also provides for a maximum prison term of 10 years for unlicensed activity but limits fines to an amount of 1 million rand.

This bill appeared one day after the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition published comments from its Chief Director of Space Affairs, Nomfuneko Majaji, who is listed in the gazette notice as the public opinion contact person. Speaking at a panel organized by UNCTAD at the World Investment Forum in Doha on October 25–27, Majaji stated that developing countries are not obliged to start with the most capital-intensive aspects of the space economy.

She noted that there are significant low-entry-barrier opportunities that can bring immediate economic and developmental value depending on the level of development of the countries—such areas as Earth observation (EO), geospatial applications, AI-driven space data processing, data analysis, and digital services.

Majaji also highlighted component manufacturing, noting that South Africa possesses industrial and engineering capabilities that can be developed 'to increase domestic participation in satellite and space system value chains.' These are the sectors the new bill may cover. It defines a space object as 'an object launched or intended to be launched into outer space' but does not clarify whether the manufacturing of components for such an object constitutes manufacturing. This could be significant for companies like NewSpace Systems from Somerset West, which allegedly opened the largest aerospace equipment factory in Africa in March. Furthermore, the bill does not define 'space applications,' leaving open the question of whether firms creating satellite data-based services—the lower-tier enterprises Majaji pointed to—will require permits.

The bill applies to South African citizens, permanent residents, and companies, including activities carried out abroad on their behalf. Permit holders will also be required to have insurance equivalent to the value of the space object, as well as liability insurance. The 1993 Act does not mention insurance, although it allows license conditions to regulate liability.

The state is responsible for damage in accordance with the 1972 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, but operators must indemnify the state for damage caused by objects launched from South African territory. The minister, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, will establish the required liability coverage.

New Regulator

The bill provides for the establishment of the South African Space Regulatory Authority (Sasra), which will consist of up to 14 members appointed by the minister. This guarantees fewer seats in the industry than in the current South African Space Council (Sacsa): the 1993 law requires two industry representatives, whereas the bill requires 'at least one representative from the space industry.' Up to three expert members of the authority may be employees authorized to issue permits.

Appeals will still be directed to the minister, but the minister may appoint an independent committee chaired by a retired judge to advise on them. Decisions to suspend or revoke a permit can be reviewed by the Court of Appeal.

Daily operations will be entrusted to the new National Office for Space Affairs (Noosa)—a civil service division that will function as the authority's secretariat and maintain the national register of space objects. The public has 60 days from the Friday publication—or until the end of December—to submit comments.

Similar stories

SpaceX plans to buy residences of neighbors affected by the noise from its data centers
Read more
tecnoblog.net

SpaceX plans to buy residences of neighbors affected by the noise from its data centers

It is common for residents near data centers to complain about the disturbances caused by these facilities. To solve this situation, SpaceX apparently found a drastic approach: acquiring houses located near a power plant that directly supplies these data centers.

The specific case involves SpaceXSI, an entity formed by the merger of xAI with SpaceX. xAI was established by Elon Musk in 2023 with the goal of developing artificial intelligence services and technologies, including Grok.

As is known, AI applications require specialized data centers. For this reason, SpaceXSI erected such facilities in 2024, still under the name xAI, in the Memphis area, United States.

Data centers consume a large amount of electricity. To meet this demand, SpaceXSI installed a energy production infrastructure consisting of 69 temporary gas-powered turbines in the city of Southaven. However, these turbines generate considerable noise, causing great inconvenience to local residents, in addition to other problems such as air pollution.

According to a report by The Guardian, SpaceXSI began assigning real estate agents to approach residents near the plant, offering purchase proposals for their properties.

A real estate agent informed a resident that Elon Musk's company project plans to buy 418 houses in the region, of which 18 have already been negotiated. Additionally, five other residences have already been acquired by MZX, a SpaceX subsidiary responsible for operating the energy structure.

According to the same newspaper, the purchased houses will be used to house the company's employees. The acquisition offers are priced at values close to US$ 180,000, which represents the estimated average price of houses in that locality.

There is a condition imposed on this transaction: the resident who wishes to sell their house must agree not to take legal action against SpaceXSI due to the inconveniences caused by the electric plant.

Indeed, there is a class-action lawsuit against SpaceXSI ongoing since June of this year. In this lawsuit, residents allege that the plant produces a continuous sound, which often resembles the noise of aircraft. In this context, the purchase of the residences emerges as a tactic to prevent the judicial conflict from escalating.

In the following month, the company reached an agreement with state regulatory bodies to convert the plant into a permanent gas power generation facility. This change will involve a more modern structure, which in turn should reduce the noise level emitted by the temporary turbines.

SpaceXSI had also previously made statements about implementing measures to mitigate the disturbances, such as building acoustic barriers and adjusting power generation capacity.

However, the supposed strategy of buying properties in the area raises questions about whether Elon Musk's company truly intends to be a cordial neighbor, as suggested.

To date, SpaceXSI has not issued any official statement regarding this property acquisition plan.

Digitalization in Africa: New Sovereignty Challenges in the Face of Transnational Corporations
Read more
iol.co.za

Digitalization in Africa: New Sovereignty Challenges in the Face of Transnational Corporations

When large international corporations enter the African continent, they present their offers as investments, jobs, development, and prosperity. Their technologies are presented as indispensable, and financial support as a gift that would be foolish to refuse.

However, an uncomfortable question arises between the promise and the actual deal: who determines the terms of cooperation? South Africa is currently having such a dialogue with Elon Musk's company, Starlink. According to the intervention of the United States ambassador, insisting that a foreign company comply with local business rules is considered unfounded.

The ambassador drew attention to Musk's stated offer to connect thousands of schools in South Africa to the internet at a cost of $28 million. This sounds generous, and it is difficult to object to connecting children in rural areas left behind by the digital revolution. Nevertheless, a clear distinction must be made between charitable contribution and ownership of a commercial enterprise.

Starlink seeks access to the South African telecommunications market, but the local licensing system requires the participation of historically disadvantaged groups of at least 30%. Instead of meeting this requirement through direct equity participation, the company proposes an alternative ownership scheme. Its argument is that it must retain full control over its subsidiaries, as happens in almost 150 other markets.

But since when did the business practices of a transnational corporation become the standard by which a sovereign state must evaluate its own laws? South Africa is not alone in its concerns. Namibia demanded that Starlink cease operations in 2024 due to lack of the necessary license. Nigeria challenged the unilateral price increase for the company's subscription. In Zimbabwe, customers were disconnected after regulatory intervention regarding unauthorized roaming. In Kenya, telecom giant Safaricom urged satellite operators to collaborate with local firms and contribute to the country's economy.

These countries may demand not exactly the same things as South Africa, but they uphold a general principle: market access entails certain obligations. Furthermore, the situation in Ukraine showed the risks of dependence on infrastructure controlled by a private company, given Starlink's significant influence on military communications. When communication becomes a vital necessity, the person controlling the switch holds considerable power.

Therefore, this discussion cannot be reduced to whether we like Elon Musk or not, nor can the potential benefits of Starlink be ignored, especially in communities where reliable internet remains a luxury. The main question is whether technological development should come at the cost of economic independence.

We have already seen a similar scenario: our minerals leave the shores, our resources create wealth elsewhere, and we remain negotiating for a larger share of the created value. Should the digital economy follow this same script? Connecting 5,000 schools is commendable, but it does not grant the company automatic rights to dictate business terms. Transformation is not charity; it is an economic principle based on the need to correct a historical exception.

Perhaps the real problem is that we are so accustomed to hearing that Africa needs something that we sometimes forget our right to decide what Africa deserves.

South Africa must learn from Ukraine's experience before licensing Starlink
Read more
techcentral.co.za

South Africa must learn from Ukraine's experience before licensing Starlink

Recently, drone operators in Ukraine discovered that their satellite connections stopped functioning at altitudes above 160 km/h. This led to interceptors designed to combat Russian strike drones suddenly being unable to hold targets. Furthermore, no warnings were received in Kyiv.

This failure affected Starshield, Elon Musk's military version of Starlink. The question of who gave the order to disable it is controversial. Three US officials told Reuters that the decision was made under a directive from the White House to the Pentagon. The Telegraph reported that Musk presented this idea to Donald Trump, who agreed. However, The Wall Street Journal published information on Tuesday stating that Musk himself gave the order.

Musk stated on X that the restrictions were 'resolved by the US military and ultimately the President,' referencing the US president. Trump, meanwhile, claimed he did not know about the responsible parties. His Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, noted that Starlink 'has the ability to make decisions regarding terms of service.'

In 2023, Musk confirmed that he rejected Kyiv's request to use Starlink for attacking drones against Russian ships off the Crimean coast. Regardless of whether Musk or Trump was to blame, one company accountable to its founder and Washington suddenly degraded connectivity in the country for reasons unrelated to the people depending on this service. In Ukraine, soldiers and civilians pay for this with their lives; elsewhere, the cost could amount to lost business, closed clinics, and an inability to provide emergency assistance.

For three years, the discussion in South Africa about Starlink has focused almost exclusively on empowerment issues. SpaceX refuses to sell 30% of the local subsidiary to historically disadvantaged groups. Communications Minister Sulli Malatsi tried to find a way through investment programs equivalent to equity stakes, while the communications regulator Icasa believes this path requires changes to the Electronic Communications Act.

Popular