From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-x243.google.com (mail-qt0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61DE93CB65 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:12:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qt0-x243.google.com with SMTP id y6so162596qtm.7 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 09:12:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=dp3CTqCM2owrVhWVQ8h3intr7EjvFhxCTnrkXF5uZp0=; b=cclkoIOJwokPqX0mrASyyVNhnld7JXUagGoM8YG++DPt8Lw/Kdx6tnwLtakhx2bwdG qCDKFAajYVQ5RNoSpf2WHa21hXIP2W0IVc5feXOtN53r7jFqrwj12qRbIpMqwsSQEvG1 m9pruiPsQjdCkP0m/TP+sTJqqKLf6f9TNauV38UEBdlYvs8LSU7e1wLsbisX6UkDTuck aSsJrIEjps95Y9v10JN+Jve0RNLnxVXdzxiSTj4OvUXGIhpkW1QNsthiaZy3QD6Hm1Hh BerCxusaY54TkbR5OP51Se0UpLabhVj4OJQfE7OdIBbLAMWvMh03T9n+NQIetp2M9bZ0 3AcA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dp3CTqCM2owrVhWVQ8h3intr7EjvFhxCTnrkXF5uZp0=; b=thSl/IUgdjC5NpW2YlNgeno7QeZn9G1+CE+QByQvZMEuRsDDJ2kV7mimWJMlfjYgoU VY8YRMdM28/b4kdlviRP21Qhi5jYuVlI5j2mTpCEuNuM5hDUbI9WnQUcf9Qc94AIJ2AC n86PheynRwFStFkUy3fw4W3Yb60FadlCEEN8JKD5+A+Qpy4Hjiu0ykoV6vqY3gg4fJst R+oNhfAaUYcbMF9KrwH/3rj6eq7w0AohkkgQcgaMVBospWi22zK0dVPWA5YJiKY1ThI9 9NN3GFPTt9iAozpKmo04iB+bvk6wYk65gXQxvQKRVSp3U0MZxEJGAZjt+GDd0ppiSs3E zv3Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7Ex4i44PjxJ/CC78lY6b/UIMJEO0AGaCybYNYhaGIiV4mRIpUpR Lgzyvz1qGUBtX4Awqhf4ShU6d+B1Tp1RabPCzyTInJ40 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtKOjH74UbG/bHoegSzcnEKXC/ScInJ6NdTiE36mwDh7fSI0K4p43WE5qwJpkytq2rGUwYwHqwXKvH6Lz8Cse4= X-Received: by 10.200.81.215 with SMTP id d23mr1803143qtn.272.1520957563682; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 09:12:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: gettysjim@gmail.com Received: by 10.12.210.65 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 09:12:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1520875105.31683592@apps.rackspace.com> <1520881804.31539998@apps.rackspace.com> From: Jim Gettys Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:12:43 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: AfzOSDtdDWLyzgWT_DE3sxJ0aYQ Message-ID: To: Christopher Robin Cc: "dpreed@deepplum.com" , cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f4f5e806cfc44d468805674d8775" 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: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 16:12:44 -0000 --f4f5e806cfc44d468805674d8775 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The issue is that they can't track satellites that small using current radar technology. They literally move satellites out of the way if 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 satellites will reenter quickly enough that there is unlikely to be a problem. Other orbits are seldom used, so there isn't much to run 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 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, but > I've actually done some academic reading on space debris and usable orbit= s. > The experts in the field have shown concern for how to handle the growth = of > space traffic for decades, and not just in GEO space. Someone "going rogu= e" > could have large scale impacts. This is different than flying planes 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 in > space > 2) any collision events in space tend to cascade into a much larger probl= em > > There are some awesome technologies on the horizon, and I want to see the= m > come about. But unlike terrestrial radio, fixing a mistake isn't currentl= y > feasible for small scale companies. Until that changes, we really need an > independent, international organization that will verify that these small > startups didn't miss something in their planning. Personally I'd rather b= e > stuck with sub-par terrestrial signals than increasing risk to GPS & > weather imaging. > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:10 PM, dpreed@deepplum.com > wrote: > >> To 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 >> rulemaking of the FCC should be forever aimed at protecting those TV set= s, >> because someone's grandmother somewhere might still own one. >> >> >> >> It's a technologically backwards idea. It's the kind of idea that made i= t >> next to impossible to legalize WiFi [I know, I was there]. Only a very k= ey >> person (named M. Marcus, now retired from FCC OET, and a friend) was abl= e >> 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 the= y >> follow the equivalent of Moore's Law for space) avoidance becomes feasib= le, >> *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 jus= t >> 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" >> 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 smaller. On= e >> rogue rocket with a poor/flawed understanding of that could endanger >> several other satellites. Many systems already in orbit lack the redunda= ncy >> 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 > > 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 actuall= y >>> 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 >>> 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 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 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> 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 > > --f4f5e806cfc44d468805674d8775 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The= issue is that they can't track satellites that small using current rad= ar technology.=C2=A0 They literally move satellites out of the way
if there is some possib= ility of collision.=C2=A0 If there is a collision, then you get lots of deb= ris, that just makes the debris
problem worse.=C2=A0=C2=A0

See:=C2=A0https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collisi= on

Certain orbits are= much more of an issue than others; for example, low earth orbits decay qui= ckly enough that there is little issue, as the satellites will=C2=A0
<= div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-size:small">reenter quickly enoug= h that there is unlikely to be a problem.=C2=A0 Other orbits are seldom use= d, so there isn't much to run into.

The satellite's vendor proposed using on-board GPS to se= nd its location.

The prob= lem is that if the satellite fails, they would get no information.=C2=A0 Th= e FCC was unhappy with that.=C2=A0 Launching without solving that
objection is a real &quo= t;no-no".a

Jim
=




On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Christop= her Robin <pheoni@gmail.com> wrote:
Now I'm not defending the FCC thinking it ha= s global launch control, but I've actually done some academic reading o= n space debris and usable orbits. The experts in the field have shown conce= rn for how to handle the growth of space traffic for decades, and not just = in GEO space. Someone "going rogue" could have large scale impact= s. This is different than flying planes or setting up a new radio tower wit= hout following the "rules of the road". Space also has the additi= onal factors that:

1) there is currently no way (realistic) to clean= up after an event in space
2) any collision events in space tend to ca= scade into a much larger 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 compan= ies. Until that changes, we really need an independent, international organ= ization that will verify that these small startups didn't miss somethin= g in their planning. Personally I'd rather be stuck with sub-par terres= trial signals than increasing risk to GPS & weather imaging.=C2=A0=C2= =A0

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:10 PM, dpreed@deepplum.com <= dpreed@deepplum.com> wrote:

To me that is analogous to the idea that since ancie= nt 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 ent= ire effort and rulemaking of the FCC should be forever aimed at protecting = those TV sets, because someone's grandmother somewhere might still own = one.

=C2=A0

It's a= technologically backwards idea. It's the kind of idea that made it nex= t to impossible to legalize WiFi [I know, I was there]. Only a very key per= son (named M. Marcus, now retired from FCC OET, and a friend) was able to e= nable the use of WiFi technologies in the ISM bands. Otherwise, the idea th= at all current poorly scalable systems ought to be allowed to "block&q= uot; new technologies takes over.

=C2=A0

All I can = say is that if you really think about sharing orbital space in a scalable w= ay, there is a lot more "space" available. Which is why I suggest= ed "rules of the road" that operate in everyone's interest an= d privilege no one use over another are almost certainly feasible. As satel= lites 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 proto= cols*.

=C2=A0

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 inhabit= ed only by criminals. Encryption is something no one with "nothing to = hide" needs to use.

=C2=A0

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

=C2=A0

My point i= s that while it may be that *geosynchronous equatorial orbit* is very tight= ly occupied, most MEO and LEO space is not densely occupied at all.

-----Origi= nal Message-----
From: "Christopher Robin" <pheoni@gmail.com>
Sent: Mo= nday, March 12, 2018 1:34pm
To: "dpreed@deepplum.com" <dpreed@deepplum.com>
Cc: <= a href=3D"mailto:cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" target=3D"_blank">cer= owrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] s= pacebee

The portion of space with usable orbital paths is much, mu= ch 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 ru= in the usability of a much larger section of space.=C2=A0

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:18 PM, dpreed@deepplum.com <dpree= d@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 actual= ly quite big.

=C2=A0

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

I do believe that th= e international space treaties require our government to control all launch= es.
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> wrote:
This is awesome. The FCC (whic still doesn&#= 39;t "get" spread spectrum
radio) just discovered it doesn= 9;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

--

Dave T=C3=A4ht
= CEO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-669-226-2619
_____________________= __________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-d= evel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://l= ists.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/cero= wrt-devel


--f4f5e806cfc44d468805674d8775--