Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee

["dpreed@deepplum.com" <dpreed@deepplum.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4593 bytes --]


To me that is analogous to the idea that since ancient TV sets would show weird ghosts when various kinds of radio transmitters were placed nearby (or even be disturbed by power-line noise) that the entire effort and rulemaking of the FCC should be forever aimed at 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 made it next to impossible to legalize WiFi [I know, I was there]. Only a very key person (named M. Marcus, now retired from FCC OET, and a friend) was able to enable the use of WiFi technologies in the ISM bands. Otherwise, the idea that all current poorly scalable systems ought to be allowed to "block" new technologies takes over.
 
All I can say is that if you really think about sharing orbital space in a scalable way, there is a lot more "space" available. Which is why I suggested "rules of the road" that operate in everyone's interest and privilege no one use over another are almost certainly feasible. As satellites get more capable (smaller, lighter, more maneuverable, as they follow the equivalent of Moore's Law for space) avoidance becomes feasible, *especially if all satellites can coordinate via low energy networking protocols*.
 
I know all the scare stories. Planes will fall out of the sky if someone accidentally uses a WiFi device or cellphone on airplanes. The Internet will be inhabited only by criminals. Encryption is 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 articles" as so many do.
 
My point is that while it may be that *geosynchronous equatorial orbit* is very tightly occupied, most MEO and LEO space is not densely occupied at all.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Christopher Robin" <pheoni@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 1:34pm
To: "dpreed@deepplum.com" <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 smaller. One rogue rocket with a poor/flawed understanding of that could endanger several other satellites. Many systems already in orbit lack the redundancy to handle a major collision. And any 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 ]( mailto:dpreed@deepplum.com ) <[ dpreed@deepplum.com ]( mailto:dpreed@deepplum.com )> wrote:

Well, that may be the case, but it's a non-scalable and highly corruptible system. IMO it's probably unnecesary, too. Space is actually quite big.


 
-----Original Message-----
From: "Jim Gettys" <[ jg@freedesktop.org ]( mailto:jg@freedesktop.org )>
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:26pm
To: "Dave Taht" <[ dave.taht@gmail.com ]( mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com )>
Cc: [ cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net ]( mailto:cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net )
Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee




I do believe that the international space treaties require our 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 than radio radiation, that is the issue here.
Jim


On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Dave Taht <[ dave.taht@gmail.com ]( mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com )> 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-accuses-stealthy-startup-of-launching-rogue-satellites ]( https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites/fcc-accuses-stealthy-startup-of-launching-rogue-satellites )

 --

 Dave Täht
 CEO, TekLibre, LLC
[ http://www.teklibre.com ]( http://www.teklibre.com )
 Tel: [ 1-669-226-2619 ]( tel:1-669-226-2619 )
 _______________________________________________
 Cerowrt-devel mailing list
[ Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net ]( mailto:Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net )
[ https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel ]( https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel )

_______________________________________________
 Cerowrt-devel mailing list
[ Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net ]( mailto:Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net )
[ https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel ]( https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel )


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7580 bytes --]