From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp89.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (smtp89.iad3a.emailsrvr.com [173.203.187.89]) (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 C491E3CB3F for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 15:10:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp28.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp28.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 7FA8E55C4; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 15:10:04 -0400 (EDT) X-SMTPDoctor-Processed: csmtpprox beta Received: from smtp28.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp28.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 7BFDB5342; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 15:10:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from app33.wa-webapps.iad3a (relay-webapps.rsapps.net [172.27.255.140]) by smtp28.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 5D3205754; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 15:10:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender-Id: dpreed@deepplum.com Received: from app33.wa-webapps.iad3a (relay-webapps.rsapps.net [172.27.255.140]) by 0.0.0.0:25 (trex/5.7.12); Mon, 12 Mar 2018 15:10:04 -0400 Received: from deepplum.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by app33.wa-webapps.iad3a (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D952A17D3; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 15:10:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by apps.rackspace.com (Authenticated sender: dpreed@deepplum.com, from: dpreed@deepplum.com) with HTTP; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 15:10:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Auth-ID: dpreed@deepplum.com Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 15:10:04 -0400 (EDT) From: "dpreed@deepplum.com" To: "Christopher Robin" Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_20180312151004000000_52113" Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Type: html In-Reply-To: References: <1520875105.31683592@apps.rackspace.com> Message-ID: <1520881804.31539998@apps.rackspace.com> X-Mailer: webmail/12.13.2-RC 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: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:10:04 -0000 ------=_20180312151004000000_52113 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0ATo me that is analogous to the idea that since ancient TV sets would sho= w weird ghosts when various kinds of radio transmitters were placed nearby = (or even be disturbed by power-line noise) that the entire effort and rulem= aking of the FCC should be forever aimed at protecting those TV sets, becau= se someone's grandmother somewhere might still own one.=0A =0AIt's a techno= logically backwards idea. It's the kind of idea that made it next to imposs= ible 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 u= se of WiFi technologies in the ISM bands. Otherwise, the idea that all curr= ent poorly scalable systems ought to be allowed to "block" new technologies= takes over.=0A =0AAll I can say is that if you really think about sharing = orbital space in a scalable way, there is a lot more "space" available. Whi= ch is why I suggested "rules of the road" that operate in everyone's intere= st and privilege no one use over another are almost certainly feasible. As = satellites get more capable (smaller, lighter, more maneuverable, as they f= ollow the equivalent of Moore's Law for space) avoidance becomes feasible, = *especially if all satellites can coordinate via low energy networking prot= ocols*.=0A =0AI 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 on= e with "nothing to hide" needs to use.=0A =0APlease. Think harder. Become a= n expert on space technology, etc. Not just someone who "knowledgably repea= ts lines from news media articles" as so many do.=0A =0AMy point is that wh= ile it may be that *geosynchronous equatorial orbit* is very tightly occupi= ed, most MEO and LEO space is not densely occupied at all.=0A-----Original = Message-----=0AFrom: "Christopher Robin" =0ASent: Monday,= March 12, 2018 1:34pm=0ATo: "dpreed@deepplum.com" =0A= Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net=0ASubject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spac= ebee=0A=0A=0A=0AThe portion of space with usable orbital paths is much, muc= h smaller. One rogue rocket with a poor/flawed understanding of that could = endanger several other satellites. Many systems already in orbit lack the r= edundancy to handle a major collision. And any collision in orbit could rui= n the usability of a much larger section of space. =0A=0A=0AOn Mon, Mar 12,= 2018 at 1:18 PM, [ dpreed@deepplum.com ]( mailto:dpreed@deepplum.com ) <[ = dpreed@deepplum.com ]( mailto:dpreed@deepplum.com )> wrote:=0A=0AWell, that= may be the case, but it's a non-scalable and highly corruptible system. IM= O it's probably unnecesary, too. Space is actually quite big.=0A=0A=0A =0A-= ----Original Message-----=0AFrom: "Jim Gettys" <[ jg@freedesktop.org ]( mai= lto:jg@freedesktop.org )>=0ASent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:26pm=0ATo: "Dav= e Taht" <[ dave.taht@gmail.com ]( mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com )>=0ACc: [ cer= owrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net ]( mailto:cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.= net )=0ASubject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AI do believe th= at the international space treaties require our government to control all l= aunches.=0ALaunching satellites without permission is a big no-no.=0ANote t= hat according to the article, it is collision risk, rather than radio radia= tion, that is the issue here.=0AJim=0A=0A=0AOn Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:13 A= M, Dave Taht <[ dave.taht@gmail.com ]( mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com )> wrote:= =0AThis is awesome. The FCC (whic still doesn't "get" spread spectrum=0A ra= dio) just discovered it doesn't have authority over the airwaves of=0A the = whole planet.=0A=0A[ https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellit= es/fcc-accuses-stealthy-startup-of-launching-rogue-satellites ]( https://sp= ectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites/fcc-accuses-stealthy-startup= -of-launching-rogue-satellites )=0A=0A --=0A=0A Dave T=C3=A4ht=0A CEO, TekL= ibre, LLC=0A[ http://www.teklibre.com ]( http://www.teklibre.com )=0A Tel: = [ 1-669-226-2619 ]( tel:1-669-226-2619 )=0A _______________________________= ________________=0A Cerowrt-devel mailing list=0A[ Cerowrt-devel@lists.buff= erbloat.net ]( mailto:Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net )=0A[ https://lis= ts.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel ]( https://lists.bufferbloat.net/= listinfo/cerowrt-devel )=0A=0A_____________________________________________= __=0A Cerowrt-devel mailing list=0A[ Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net ](= mailto:Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net )=0A[ https://lists.bufferbloat= .net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel ]( https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerow= rt-devel )=0A=0A ------=_20180312151004000000_52113 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

To me that is analogou= s to the idea that since ancient TV sets would show weird ghosts when vario= us 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 b= e forever aimed at protecting those TV sets, because someone's grandmother = somewhere might still own one.

=0A

 

=0A

It's a technologically backwards idea. It's the kind of id= ea 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 fr= iend) was able to enable the use of WiFi technologies in the ISM bands. Oth= erwise, the idea that all current poorly scalable systems ought to be allow= ed to "block" new technologies takes over.

=0A

 = ;

=0A

All I can say is that if you really think abou= t sharing orbital space in a scalable way, there is a lot more "space" avai= lable. Which is why I suggested "rules of the road" that operate in everyon= e's interest and privilege no one use over another are almost certainly fea= sible. 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 netwo= rking protocols*.

=0A

 

=0A

I know all the scare stories. Planes will fall out of the sky if someon= e accidentally uses a WiFi device or cellphone on airplanes. The Internet w= ill be inhabited only by criminals. Encryption is something no one with "no= thing to hide" needs to use.

=0A

 

=0A

Please. Think harder. Become an expert on space technology, = etc. Not just someone who "knowledgably repeats lines from news media artic= les" as so many do.

=0A

 

=0A

My point is that while it may be that *geosynchronous equatorial orbi= t* is very tightly occupied, most MEO and LEO space is not densely occupied= at all.

=0A

-----Original Message-----
From: "= Christopher Robin" <pheoni@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 12, 20= 18 1:34pm
To: "dpreed@deepplum.com" <dpreed@deepplum.com>
C= c: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] sp= acebee

=0A
=0A
The portion of space with usable orbital paths is much, much smaller. On= e rogue rocket with a poor/flawed understanding of that could endanger seve= ral other satellites. Many systems already in orbit lack the redundancy to = handle a major collision. And any collision in orbit could ruin the usabili= ty of a much larger section of space. 
=0A

=0A
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:18 PM, dpreed@deepplum.com <dpreed@dee= pplum.com> wrote:
=0A
Well, that may be the case, but it's a non-scalable a= nd highly corruptible system. IMO it's probably unnecesary, too. Space is a= ctually quite big.

=0A
=0A
=0A

&nbs= p;

=0A

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

=0A
=0A
=0A
I do believe that the international space= treaties require our government to control all launches.
=0A
Launching satellites withou= t permission is a big no-no.
=0A
Note that according to the article, it is collision risk= , rather than radio radiation, that is the issue here.
=0A
Jim
=0A
=0A

=0A
On Mon, Mar 12, 201= 8 at 12:13 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
=0A
This is awesome. The FCC (whic sti= ll doesn't "get" spread spectrum
radio) just discovered it doesn't ha= ve 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<= /a>
Tel: 1-669-226-2= 619
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt= -devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A<= /div>=0A
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt= -devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

=0A
=0A
=0A
 ------=_20180312151004000000_52113--