On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > 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. > ​​ > > ​Something that size, hitting at thousands of miles/hour, will destroy what it hits. Size, until the object gets really small, really doesn't matter. > 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’s > 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. > ​Objects in low earth orbits don't last very long; they decay quickly due to drag. So low earth orbit just doesn't have much to hit in the first place, and a satellite there doesn't live very long either. Higher orbits are much more problematic. > 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. > ​Read the wikipedia article, and the analysis of the Chinese collision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision The Kesseler syndrome is a real problem.​ > > 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. > ​Again, there are limitations on how small an object they can track via radar. - Jim​ > > > > 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 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 > orbits. > >> 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 > rogue" > >> 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 > >> 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 really need > an > >> independent, international organization that will verify that these > small > >> startups didn't miss something in their planning. Personally I'd rather > be > >> 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 < > dpreed@deepplum.com> > >> 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 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" > >>> 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. > 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 > >>> 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" > >>>> 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 Täht > >>>>> 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 > > > > > > -- > > Dave Täht > CEO, TekLibre, LLC > http://www.teklibre.com > Tel: 1-669-226-2619 >