[Cerowrt-devel] spacebee

[Cerowrt-devel] spacebee

[Dave Taht]

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

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee

[dpreed]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2806 bytes --]


 
This is fascinating. Could it be that the idea of "open networks of satellites" are going to start to play the role of WiFi or UWB? Scalable sharing of orbital space, using a simple cooperative protocol? In other words, the first step toward what Vint Cerf championed as the "Interplanetary Internet?
 
 
 
If so, that explains why the FCC id doing the bidding of its masters. Sure, we need a few rules of the road to manage space orbits, etc. That's in *everyone's* public interest.
 
 
 
But do we need the rules to be set by a fully captured regulatory mechanism in the pockets of monopoly capital?
 
 
 
I wrote this comment to another mailing list. Thought you might find it interesing here as well. (This reflects very deep personal experience with building scalable decentralized systems for most of my life, plus encounters with the FCC around getting UWB authorized - it was defenestrated in the form that they authorized it - and my experiences with the "be very afraid" camp that informs the FCC's idea that SDR is not to be allowed, ever, in products certified for sale in the US to consumers). It's remarkable how the idea that "we need rules of the road" gets perverted into "the US and its corporate owners must have power over", esp. in the FCC.
 
-----------------------
 
One should ask, why hasn't NASA stepped in to facilitate discussion of orbital rules of the road? Preferably the minimum necessary rules, allowing the most flexibility to innovate and create value.
 
 
 
And one should also ask, one whose behalf is FCC making these choices?
 
 
 
Space, in theory, belongs to all of us. Not governments defined by national boundaries, not the UN, ... it *belongs* to us, just as the Sea does.
 
 
 
It's helpful to have rules (for example, the WiFi rules which extend Part 15's "accept all interference and don't deliberately interfere" to a concrete - listen for energy before you transmit, and transmit using a power and modulation that has the least impact on others. Bran Ferren called this the "Golden Rule". The law of the sea is similar.
 
 
 
One can ask whether the FCC has any legitimate constitutional mandate over space at all. Maybe that should be taken to the (sadly plutocratic) Supreme Court, or even better, a true judicial court that incorporates the interests and fairness to all of the planet?
 
 
 
We should remember that if Swarm launched and operated its network of satellites from the middle of the ocean (remember Pirate Radio Stations in the UK beyond the coastal zone), the US FCC could not touch them. Arguably, there's no one who could legally touch them.
 
 
 
That said, we need rules of the road, like we do for drones. But they should not be written by those who stand to lose their privileges.
 
 
 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7966 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee

[Jim Gettys]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 929 bytes --]

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> 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2258 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee

[dpreed]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1602 bytes --]


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>
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:26pm
To: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com>
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 <[ 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 )

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2784 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee

[Christopher Robin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1971 bytes --]

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 <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>
> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:26pm
> To: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com>
> 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 <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
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4122 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee

[dpreed]

[-- 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 --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee

[Christopher Robin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5463 bytes --]

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" <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 <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>
>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:26pm
>> To: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>> 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 <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
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9230 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee

[Jim Gettys]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6777 bytes --]

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 <pheoni@gmail.com> 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" <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 <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>
>>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:26pm
>>> To: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>>> 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 <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
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> 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
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 12145 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee

[Dave Taht]

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.

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.

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.

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.



On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:12 AM, Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org> 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 <pheoni@gmail.com> 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" <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
>>> <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>
>>>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:26pm
>>>> To: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>>>> 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 <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
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> 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

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee

[Jim Gettys]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10933 bytes --]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> 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 <jg@freedesktop.org> 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 <pheoni@gmail.com>
> 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" <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
> >>> <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>
> >>>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:26pm
> >>>> To: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com>
> >>>> 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 <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
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 17129 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee

[Dave Taht]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> 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.

You don't get relative velocity numbers for sats that large unless the
orbit is asymmetric. I'd have to go look up the numbers for this
launch...

Certainly you have to worry a bit about launches through zones like this.

> Size, until the object gets really small, really doesn't matter.

The odds of a collision drop proportionally (what's the math?) to
size. Imagine useful sats this small, or smaller, in lower orbits that
burn up in a few years, and constant replacement and technological
refreshment...

>
>
>>
>> 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.

Higher orbits have been classically useful due to large sat size and
difficulty in aiming antennas. Being so high up compounds the problem
with gain and latency. If we instead start using constellations in LEO
(as per the 4800 sats spacex intends to launch), we cut latency down
to *better* than what can be achieved via fiber on earth (because we
don't have any surface features to warp around). As for bandwidth...
don't know!

Sure hope spacex has paid attention to the bufferbloat effort for that design.

>
>>
>> 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.

From the wikipedia article: "even a catastrophic Kessler scenario at
LEO would pose minimal risk for launches continuing past LEO".

Go, Spacebee!
>>
>>
>> 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 <jg@freedesktop.org> 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 <pheoni@gmail.com>
>> > 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" <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
>> >>> <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>
>> >>>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:26pm
>> >>>> To: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>> >>>> 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 <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
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 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
>
>



-- 

Dave Täht
CEO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-669-226-2619

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee

[Christopher Robin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2013 bytes --]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:03 PM Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
Note that the objections are based on a non-operating SpaceBee. I’m not
seeing anything about one of the SpaceBees going dark for testing or not
responding due to malfunction. So the ground stations are prob getting both
GPS data from the sat and a fix on the radio signal to determine position.
If both of those methods of tracking disappear, there appears to be a
limited number of ground stations that could provide an accurate enough
location to allow for other orbitals to made an avoidance maneuver.

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.

We have rules for the road, the sea, and the sky. Space needs similar
protections. No, the FCC shouldn’t be that gatekeeper, but that’s where we
are at until an agency is stood up with authority to handle these kinds of
issues.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3021 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee

[valdis.kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2189 bytes --]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 09:52:53 -0700, Dave Taht said:

> 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.

For the purposes of this example, we'll assume that a large bolt sized piece of
space debris is about the same size as a 50 caliber sniper round. That leaves
the rifle going about 4,000 feet per second.

A piece of space debris can hit at anywhere from almost zero to twice the
orbital speed, depending on relative orbit angles (the 2009 Iridium incident
they hit at almost exactly 90 degrees, so 17000 mph times sqrt(2)).

For that configuration, they collided at around 25,000 feet per second.  And
kinetic energy is 0.5 * m v ^2.  So that bolt ends up whacking you with about
40 times the force of a 50 caliber round.  That's gonna mess up your day unless
you have some serious armor - which is the last thing anything in orbit has
due to the cost of launching per pound (even the ISS is only armored enough
to stop something up to 1.5cm or so).

If you want to use a baseball as the example, find the video of Randy Johnson
pegging a stray pigeon.  And his baseball was going around 100mph.  Apply "one
half em vee squared" and we get 17000^2 / 100^2 - or a baseball in orbit
has 28,900 times the kinetic energy.

The Iridium constellation of 66 satellites already has to deal with some 400
incidents *per week* where known space junk passes within 5km.  And in most
cases, the exact orbitals for at least one of the bodies aren't exactly known -
in the 2009 incident, they had been predicted to miss by 500 meters.

And NASA has an in-progress experiment to measure how often the really
small stuff hits:

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/sensor_to_monitor_orbital_debris_outside_ISS

Sure, the chances of any given piece of debris hitting something is pretty low.
But you get enough crap in orbit, the cumulative risk over time starts getting
into territories that make your risk management team start drinking heavily.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 486 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee

[Dave Taht]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:49 AM,  <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 09:52:53 -0700, Dave Taht said:
>
>> 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.
>
> For the purposes of this example, we'll assume that a large bolt sized piece of
> space debris is about the same size as a 50 caliber sniper round. That leaves
> the rifle going about 4,000 feet per second.
>
> A piece of space debris can hit at anywhere from almost zero to twice the
> orbital speed, depending on relative orbit angles (the 2009 Iridium incident
> they hit at almost exactly 90 degrees, so 17000 mph times sqrt(2)).
>
> For that configuration, they collided at around 25,000 feet per second.  And
> kinetic energy is 0.5 * m v ^2.  So that bolt ends up whacking you with about
> 40 times the force of a 50 caliber round.  That's gonna mess up your day unless
> you have some serious armor - which is the last thing anything in orbit has
> due to the cost of launching per pound (even the ISS is only armored enough
> to stop something up to 1.5cm or so).

"U.S. space agency NASA estimated that the satellite collision created
approximately 1,000 pieces of debris larger than 10 centimeters (4
inches), in addition to many smaller ones"

Can you run the probability of a hit for two objects 10 centimeters in
size in the 2009 orbital conflict vs, say, 2 meters, with a margin of
measurement error of 500 meters?

> If you want to use a baseball as the example, find the video of Randy Johnson
> pegging a stray pigeon.  And his baseball was going around 100mph.  Apply "one
> half em vee squared" and we get 17000^2 / 100^2 - or a baseball in orbit
> has 28,900 times the kinetic energy.

I am painfully aware of this. On of my big fears in the SDI 80s was
that someone would deploy pebbles in a reverse or polar GEO orbit,
rigged to explode in a war extending to space. It could render GEO
useless in a matter of weeks. The technique (I can't remember the
codename) is so obvious (and so essentially MAD), that I've long
assumed every spacefaring nation had one or more stealthy sats rigged
that way on the drawing boards at some point or another.

> The Iridium constellation of 66 satellites already has to deal with some 400
> incidents *per week* where known space junk passes within 5km.  And in most
> cases, the exact orbitals for at least one of the bodies aren't exactly known -
> in the 2009 incident, they had been predicted to miss by 500 meters.

It was a sat from the early 90s. The collision took place in 2009.

I remember (early 00s) how n-body sims took weeks, nowadays that's
thoroughly parallized on gpus.

>
> And NASA has an in-progress experiment to measure how often the really
> small stuff hits:
>
> https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/sensor_to_monitor_orbital_debris_outside_ISS

thx for the pointer!

> Sure, the chances of any given piece of debris hitting something is pretty low.
> But you get enough crap in orbit, the cumulative risk over time starts getting
> into territories that make your risk management team start drinking heavily.

Yes we should worry about creating sea lanes for

>



-- 

Dave Täht
CEO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-669-226-2619

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee

[Dave Taht]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Christopher Robin <pheoni@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:03 PM Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>
> Note that the objections are based on a non-operating SpaceBee. I’m not
> seeing anything about one of the SpaceBees going dark for testing or not
> responding due to malfunction. So the ground stations are prob getting both
> GPS data from the sat and a fix on the radio signal to determine position.
> If both of those methods of tracking disappear, there appears to be a
> limited number of ground stations that could provide an accurate enough
> location to allow for other orbitals to made an avoidance maneuver.
>
> 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.

The arkyd-3 was supposed to be in a 25 yr orbit with a 5 year
operational lifetime... which may outlast the company at this point.

So I'd assume this orbit (and corporate and projected lifetime) is similar.

> 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.
>
> We have rules for the road, the sea, and the sky. Space needs similar
> protections. No, the FCC shouldn’t be that gatekeeper, but that’s where we
> are at until an agency is stood up with authority to handle these kinds of
> issues.

+1.


-- 

Dave Täht
CEO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-669-226-2619

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee

[Dave Taht]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:25 AM, dpreed@deepplum.com
<dpreed@deepplum.com> wrote:
>
>
> This is fascinating. Could it be that the idea of "open networks of
> satellites" are going to start to play the role of WiFi or UWB? Scalable
> sharing of orbital space, using a simple cooperative protocol? In other
> words, the first step toward what Vint Cerf championed as the
> "Interplanetary Internet?

I hope so.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> If so, that explains why the FCC id doing the bidding of its masters. Sure,
> we need a few rules of the road to manage space orbits, etc. That's in
> *everyone's* public interest.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> But do we need the rules to be set by a fully captured regulatory mechanism
> in the pockets of monopoly capital?


No!

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I wrote this comment to another mailing list. Thought you might find it
> interesing here as well. (This reflects very deep personal experience with
> building scalable decentralized systems for most of my life, plus encounters
> with the FCC around getting UWB authorized - it was defenestrated in the
> form that they authorized it - and my experiences with the "be very afraid"

I tend to think that even the defenstrated version of UWB is totally doable now,
and I wish we'd re-explore the concept.

> camp that informs the FCC's idea that SDR is not to be allowed, ever, in
> products certified for sale in the US to consumers). It's remarkable how the
> idea that "we need rules of the road" gets perverted into "the US and its
> corporate owners must have power over", esp. in the FCC.
>
>
>
> -----------------------
>
>
>
> One should ask, why hasn't NASA stepped in to facilitate discussion of
> orbital rules of the road? Preferably the minimum necessary rules, allowing
> the most flexibility to innovate and create value.

I'm not as plugged into this as I used to be, but I'm a lot more
excited about the possibilities nowadays. I should try to schedule
myself for a smallsat conference to see how things stand.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> And one should also ask, one whose behalf is FCC making these choices?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Space, in theory, belongs to all of us. Not governments defined by national
> boundaries, not the UN, ... it *belongs* to us, just as the Sea does.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It's helpful to have rules (for example, the WiFi rules which extend Part
> 15's "accept all interference and don't deliberately interfere" to a
> concrete - listen for energy before you transmit, and transmit using a power
> and modulation that has the least impact on others. Bran Ferren called this
> the "Golden Rule". The law of the sea is similar.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> One can ask whether the FCC has any legitimate constitutional mandate over
> space at all. Maybe that should be taken to the (sadly plutocratic) Supreme
> Court, or even better, a true judicial court that incorporates the interests
> and fairness to all of the planet?

Top down governance of space scares me.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We should remember that if Swarm launched and operated its network of
> satellites from the middle of the ocean (remember Pirate Radio Stations in
> the UK beyond the coastal zone), the US FCC could not touch them. Arguably,
> there's no one who could legally touch them.

Assuming they pulled it off, it's a start at competition for
https://www.orbcomm.com/en/networks/satellite/orbcomm-og2

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That said, we need rules of the road, like we do for drones. But they should
> not be written by those who stand to lose their privileges.
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 

Dave Täht
CEO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-669-226-2619

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee

[Jonathan Morton]

> On 13 Mar, 2018, at 7:31 pm, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Size, until the object gets really small, really doesn't matter.
> 
> The odds of a collision drop proportionally (what's the math?) to
> size. Imagine useful sats this small, or smaller, in lower orbits that
> burn up in a few years, and constant replacement and technological
> refreshment...

Observation: we're talking about an object that's substantially bigger than a bullet, substantially heavier than a bullet, and travelling *faster* than a bullet.  Collisions with such an object would be extremely high-energy, and spacecraft don't have the weight budget for the tank-grade armour required to survive such an impact.

I don't think the occupants of the ISS would be very happy with being hit by a titanium cricket ball at 10,000 kph relative.

Also, the probability of collision, given random trajectories, depends on the sizes of *both* objects involved - and rather more strongly on the size of the *larger* object.  If you reduce the size of a 10cm object by 50%, it has much less effect on the combined collision radius than reducing the size of a 10m object by 50%.

 - Jonathan Morton

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee

[Matt Taggart]

On 03/13/2018 11:06 AM, Dave Taht wrote:

> I am painfully aware of this. On of my big fears in the SDI 80s was
> that someone would deploy pebbles in a reverse or polar GEO orbit,
> rigged to explode in a war extending to space.

Continuing a tangent...

The Sci-Fi TV show The Expanse recently had a similar plotline
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3230854/

Also the Neal Stephenson book Seveneves
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seveneves

People interested in such things would love both.

-- 
Matt Taggart
matt@lackof.org

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee

[Matt Taggart]

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

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee

[Ray Ramadorai]

I'll throw in my 2cents on a couple of these items.  

With respect to launch costs.  If you are not picky about your orbit you can get a 3U cubesat into orbit for low 6 figures, this is especially true if you have something ready to launch and don't mind waiting for a slot to open up and can move quickly.  

I don't buy the idea that SpaceBEE 1,2,3,4 can't be seen by radar.  NORAD and others track objects smaller than that and regularly assign COSPAR id's to them.  This seems like a bureaucratic not a technical problem.  That having been said, getting FCC approval for spectrum for spacecraft is very much about talking to the right folks and following the rules.  At Planetary Resources we were able to get a license for a spread spectrum radio approved though it did require some back and forth with the FCC.  

It's true that most cubesats don't have prop and all are required to provide a de-orbit analysis as part of their FCC app.  That having been said almost any collision at orbital velocities is going to be destructive to both parties regardless of the presences of prop/batteries.  

One thought I have seen floating around out there is that, optical/laser comm, by its nature is not currently regulated by the FCC and as such it is *possible* to build a stabilized platform that has no RF capability and as such would not need an FCC license for launch.  To  date I don't think anyone has exercised that loophole but it is early in 2018...  

Ray


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Taht [mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 9:53 AM
To: Jim Gettys
Cc: Christopher Robin; cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee

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.

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.

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.

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.



On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:12 AM, Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org> 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 <pheoni@gmail.com> 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" <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 
>>> <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>
>>>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:26pm
>>>> To: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>>>> 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 <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-accus
>>>>> es-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