From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from complete.lackof.org (complete.lackof.org [198.49.126.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7817B3CB3D for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 00:16:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [172.16.1.4] (c-24-22-132-166.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [24.22.132.166]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by complete.lackof.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6E01933E0047 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 22:16:28 -0600 (MDT) To: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <1520875105.31683592@apps.rackspace.com> <1520881804.31539998@apps.rackspace.com> From: Matt Taggart Message-ID: <0d5055ee-8890-8d25-83c4-314086754793@lackof.org> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 21:16:28 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at complete.lackof.org X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on complete.lackof.org 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 04:16:29 -0000 On 03/13/2018 10:47 AM, Christopher Robin wrote: > With all the noise around this launch, I haven’t been able to find info > on expected operational lifespan vs expected orbit decay. LEO’s can > still last for decades. The only thing I’m finding is an expected use > for 6mo to 2yr, but not sure how long after that the Spaceebee will stay > in orbit and/or be responsive with positional data. > > While just 4 of these things in space isn’t a major concern, rogue > launching objects into space isn’t a scalable solution. This is > especially true as the cost of launching comes down into the “cheap” > startup range. These types of companies aren’t usually concerned 25yr > impact plans, and most wont last long enough to be around to assist if > any problems occur past that 2-3yr window. To possibly bring this tangent back to the topic for this list... A space start-up launching inexpensive devices into orbit with no plans for support, upgrades, or disposal is not totally unlike the situation we're in with consumer routers and other IoT things. When you think of it on that scale it gets quite a bit more scary.... It's the standard business tricks of shifting profit forward at the expense of the future and externalization of costs. (The nuclear industry is another good example, but that's a whole other tangent). -- Matt Taggart matt@lackof.org