From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from vps12593.inmotionhosting.com (vps12593.inmotionhosting.com [192.249.115.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F4183CB63 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:22:03 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ramadorai.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc:To:From:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=/GiP0kYjmWL2lPqX6NIicLGEgxre6OpN63+J2DyXfbo=; b=Yp4T8rKXB68YxDJpJoiXrxCe4x ZswuP3hOMAO75B1eLz5C4n4OLJ/EdN2OJu4zJb6vm3Z1nTi90CY0otFveOBtQSXOaC/wGXWYzjvJh F5fF9VX8EVZyO0l5AcsBZrGyDlW846SJneudxjHo+aQZnXII7x+alwAzi0C14+IFbXqWCh1DGjT1u HStgS5LDrH7B3QUH03HvDzaYaslH2Yy/eXD24ZXdJg2nBAa8z9210daylYfJ0tSW3B1uiI9V+DvTI RsrKkOvzwgxqRrzcJI3el1EU8Ki/kARFiwpymu+TGisEXyBm1uQ7Amk3E++JANqMKe87tn0vGC2IK 6Lad+q4Q==; Received: from c-73-181-197-210.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([73.181.197.210]:62900 helo=ZODIAC) by vps12593.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.89_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ewZNr-0006Mw-Dq; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:22:02 -0500 From: "Ray Ramadorai" To: "'Dave Taht'" , "'Jim Gettys'" Cc: "'Christopher Robin'" , References: <1520875105.31683592@apps.rackspace.com> <1520881804.31539998@apps.rackspace.com> In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <013e01d3bc9b$42f74350$c8e5c9f0$@ramadorai.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJVhkymxfPlQxjIJOFpckz3MtxkcwF2Hii2AvoO+r8BwU6WdgHMbPCFAfUy6UICDX+l1AI+PyPWolwrbLA= Content-Language: en-us X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - vps12593.inmotionhosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.bufferbloat.net X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ramadorai.net X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: vps12593.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: rramador@ramadorai.net X-Authenticated-Sender: vps12593.inmotionhosting.com: rramador@ramadorai.net X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 07:21:14 -0400 Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 20:22:03 -0000 X-Original-Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:21:54 -0700 X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 20:22:03 -0000 I'll throw in my 2cents on a couple of these items. =20 With respect to launch costs. If you are not picky about your orbit you = can get a 3U cubesat into orbit for low 6 figures, this is especially = true if you have something ready to launch and don't mind waiting for a = slot to open up and can move quickly. =20 I don't buy the idea that SpaceBEE 1,2,3,4 can't be seen by radar. = NORAD and others track objects smaller than that and regularly assign = COSPAR id's to them. This seems like a bureaucratic not a technical = problem. That having been said, getting FCC approval for spectrum for = spacecraft is very much about talking to the right folks and following = the rules. At Planetary Resources we were able to get a license for a = spread spectrum radio approved though it did require some back and forth = with the FCC. =20 It's true that most cubesats don't have prop and all are required to = provide a de-orbit analysis as part of their FCC app. That having been = said almost any collision at orbital velocities is going to be = destructive to both parties regardless of the presences of = prop/batteries. =20 One thought I have seen floating around out there is that, optical/laser = comm, by its nature is not currently regulated by the FCC and as such it = is *possible* to build a stabilized platform that has no RF capability = and as such would not need an FCC license for launch. To date I don't = think anyone has exercised that loophole but it is early in 2018... =20 Ray -----Original Message----- From: Dave Taht [mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 9:53 AM To: Jim Gettys Cc: Christopher Robin; cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee A couple things on the spacebee. 0) I LOVE the concept. Of late (due to my boat) I'd been digging into = the evolution of AIS repeaters, and that insanely primitive protocol, = and the hacks to make that scale over two channels of VHF up into orbit. 1) The costs of launching cubesats has dropped dramatically. I believe = this particular launch cost about $.5m per 1u device. (I was paying = attention due to my interest in Planetary Resources' work. Their 6u arkyd-3 spacecraft was in this payload and is functioning nominally.) Spacebee - Having a payload 1/4th the size of a cubesat *work* and be = useable! is a major advance. And is 1/4th the space junk. Worrying about = something smaller than baseball hitting anything strikes me as control = freakery at the FCC. 2) Although the FCC denied the application based on having inadaquate = radar reflectivity, according to their standards, the article states: "Websites dedicated to tracking operational satellites show the = SpaceBees in orbits virtually identical to those specified in = Swarm=E2=80=99s application." Ground stations can only get better. 3) most (all?) 1u spacecraft have no maneuvering capability and half of = cubesats tend to fail quickly, so there will be an increasing amount of = space junk in low orbits regardless. But there's nothing to explode on = board ('cept maybe a battery?), and probably the biggest source of space = junk has been explosions. Yes, there have been collisions, but the = smaller the device, the smaller the chance of collision. 4) Flat out bypassing a staid and boring agency, getting the thing = launched, and proving the concept is just so american! but unless the = regulations are reformed I could certainly see more and more sats = created outside the USA. ITAR is a real PITA, and now testing, = development, and regulation now dominate over launch costs. 5) I'd misread the article, and interpreted part of the denial based on = some longstanding issues they've had with not allowing spread spectrum = radio in orbit. I'd love to see an independent, fast-moving, external and international = group just start ignoring the FCC on certain matters, or acting in = concert to help push small sats forward, faster. On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:12 AM, Jim Gettys wrote: > The issue is that they can't track satellites that small using current = > radar technology. They literally move satellites out of the way if=20 > there is some possibility of collision. If there is a collision, then = > you get lots of debris, that just makes the debris problem worse. > > See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision > > Certain orbits are much more of an issue than others; for example, low = > earth orbits decay quickly enough that there is little issue, as the=20 > satellites will reenter quickly enough that there is unlikely to be a=20 > problem. Other orbits are seldom used, so there isn't much to run=20 > into. > > The satellite's vendor proposed using on-board GPS to send its = location. > > The problem is that if the satellite fails, they would get no = information. > The FCC was unhappy with that. Launching without solving that=20 > objection is a real "no-no".a > > Jim > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Christopher Robin = wrote: >> >> Now I'm not defending the FCC thinking it has global launch control,=20 >> but I've actually done some academic reading on space debris and = usable orbits. >> The experts in the field have shown concern for how to handle the=20 >> growth of space traffic for decades, and not just in GEO space. = Someone "going rogue" >> could have large scale impacts. This is different than flying planes=20 >> or setting up a new radio tower without following the "rules of the = road". >> Space also has the additional factors that: >> >> 1) there is currently no way (realistic) to clean up after an event=20 >> in space >> 2) any collision events in space tend to cascade into a much larger=20 >> problem >> >> There are some awesome technologies on the horizon, and I want to see = >> them come about. But unlike terrestrial radio, fixing a mistake isn't = >> currently feasible for small scale companies. Until that changes, we=20 >> really need an independent, international organization that will=20 >> verify that these small startups didn't miss something in their=20 >> planning. Personally I'd rather be stuck with sub-par terrestrial=20 >> signals than increasing risk to GPS & weather imaging. >> >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:10 PM, dpreed@deepplum.com=20 >> >> wrote: >>> >>> To me that is analogous to the idea that since ancient TV sets would = >>> show weird ghosts when various kinds of radio transmitters were=20 >>> placed nearby (or even be disturbed by power-line noise) that the=20 >>> entire effort and rulemaking of the FCC should be forever aimed at=20 >>> protecting those TV sets, because someone's grandmother somewhere = might still own one. >>> >>> >>> >>> It's a technologically backwards idea. It's the kind of idea that=20 >>> made it next to impossible to legalize WiFi [I know, I was there].=20 >>> Only a very key person (named M. Marcus, now retired from FCC OET,=20 >>> and a friend) was able to enable the use of WiFi technologies in the = >>> ISM bands. Otherwise, the idea that all current poorly scalable=20 >>> systems ought to be allowed to "block" new technologies takes over. >>> >>> >>> >>> All I can say is that if you really think about sharing orbital=20 >>> space in a scalable way, there is a lot more "space" available.=20 >>> Which is why I suggested "rules of the road" that operate in=20 >>> everyone's interest and privilege no one use over another are almost = >>> certainly feasible. As satellites get more capable (smaller,=20 >>> lighter, more maneuverable, as they follow the equivalent of Moore's = >>> Law for space) avoidance becomes feasible, *especially if all=20 >>> satellites can coordinate via low energy networking protocols*. >>> >>> >>> >>> I know all the scare stories. Planes will fall out of the sky if=20 >>> someone accidentally uses a WiFi device or cellphone on airplanes.=20 >>> The Internet will be inhabited only by criminals. Encryption is=20 >>> something no one with "nothing to hide" needs to use. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please. Think harder. Become an expert on space technology, etc. Not = >>> just someone who "knowledgably repeats lines from news media=20 >>> articles" as so many do. >>> >>> >>> >>> My point is that while it may be that *geosynchronous equatorial=20 >>> orbit* is very tightly occupied, most MEO and LEO space is not=20 >>> densely occupied at all. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: "Christopher Robin" >>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 1:34pm >>> To: "dpreed@deepplum.com" >>> Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee >>> >>> The portion of space with usable orbital paths is much, much=20 >>> smaller. One rogue rocket with a poor/flawed understanding of that=20 >>> could endanger several other satellites. Many systems already in=20 >>> orbit lack the redundancy to handle a major collision. And any=20 >>> collision in orbit could ruin the usability of a much larger section = of space. >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:18 PM, dpreed@deepplum.com=20 >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Well, that may be the case, but it's a non-scalable and highly=20 >>>> corruptible system. IMO it's probably unnecesary, too. Space is=20 >>>> actually quite big. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: "Jim Gettys" >>>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:26pm >>>> To: "Dave Taht" >>>> Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>> Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee >>>> >>>> I do believe that the international space treaties require our=20 >>>> government to control all launches. >>>> Launching satellites without permission is a big no-no. >>>> Note that according to the article, it is collision risk, rather=20 >>>> than radio radiation, that is the issue here. >>>> Jim >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Dave Taht = wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This is awesome. The FCC (whic still doesn't "get" spread spectrum >>>>> radio) just discovered it doesn't have authority over the airwaves = >>>>> of the whole planet. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites/fcc-accus >>>>> es-stealthy-startup-of-launching-rogue-satellites >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Dave T=C3=A4ht >>>>> CEO, TekLibre, LLC >>>>> http://www.teklibre.com >>>>> Tel: 1-669-226-2619 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list >>>>> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list >>>> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel >>>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cerowrt-devel mailing list >> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-669-226-2619