From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-x231.google.com (mail-lf0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 336A83CB3E for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:29:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x231.google.com with SMTP id m69-v6so25292391lfe.8 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:29:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=k0dGAGwQk3mUXoih/nbPJNnUV9vT22KVQMLfhFzTNQw=; b=oEBtSIkPvnwS7BRh5CAzrMTeIh410gKpHM5iZ1sD+yMhYV3Ldxqoa5k0N7tXtOWLDv 5PPt6aM8keCV4KZHXpFsiWJ8AZvdmJn76hszy638C6PCk09McRMyaUcCUm9uNziXp4h2 MqnOM7av0He9iTpcJtDqZUisfsiZc0jE4EHHg1qALgGWTPQ9CKJb32cedz4bS1WnbibV z2+5ZYEyoGlSKo6CC0Asjie+5A7wFzM3V6DMUR6uZ5Bz6zhGeQFru0lCQNDSVx2SHI/V UTT51lRVF2Cfvx59DJeKTrcIZXRabrZz2VVUOYbzq0cpcL7rYMZ5Q7YCAaqwEVSsVXrh 60oQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=k0dGAGwQk3mUXoih/nbPJNnUV9vT22KVQMLfhFzTNQw=; b=MJRA4blxjEqqKsolvM8/BB23rNn1E40B4Ho4SAqnNmoPdJSany3RbP1UEVdQURkGhn 6xx7j0EQKSqShSKjRN2KWca4nPhnTYSwo3igZI3Y/mTuOFsjH8/+2ibPG0ifqB5cVAYK 0Jnmq66sKVxiKJSRVKTmUcra/j7Lsh+ab9Ih7cwQr7oPT+tostspgQXXAJIRCtheATUZ fhJlc1XFTuAJuEne2dYh5dErZ7H3P1u7tgT1of9u3Xmq43xAjdZ7Yk+nLwAC2iv+E2C5 JoYGePUrGhvYQodZdynbhHf6VaTE5DiE/6d2ne8avBQRQvLhgzWY8uEDbJqpUL71owBs DpMw== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7F9GuZGk4Kxtl/LAXWtkZvbFc0Pi45YB0idJgBJ4JCdJBZrM2fv luQbDwYYu0ElyINMTiszJ/jDPu2FMUaN+yzmBow= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELsGNFr1Hb23qc8dZrVK/k6y5A0KxL5a7Z3DGX9kaLL9xKX5AZtyYHN8mcYBhnLBg/KNOgsCznwECt08Rv7xcHw= X-Received: by 10.46.124.11 with SMTP id x11mr5869172ljc.72.1520886577787; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:29:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a19:d71c:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:29:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1520881804.31539998@apps.rackspace.com> References: <1520875105.31683592@apps.rackspace.com> <1520881804.31539998@apps.rackspace.com> From: Christopher Robin Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:29:37 -0400 Message-ID: To: "dpreed@deepplum.com" Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f4f5e8072a80367b7e05673d000a" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 20:29:39 -0000 --f4f5e8072a80367b7e05673d000a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 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 ke= y > 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 feasibl= e, > *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* i= s > 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 redundan= cy > 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 governmen= t >> to control all launches. >> Launching satellites without permission is a big no-no. >> Note that according to the article, it is collision risk, rather than >> radio radiation, that is the issue here. >> Jim >> >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >> >>> This is awesome. The FCC (whic still doesn't "get" spread spectrum >>> radio) just discovered it doesn't have authority over the airwaves of >>> the whole planet. >>> >>> https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites/fcc-accuses- >>> stealthy-startup-of-launching-rogue-satellites >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Dave T=C3=A4ht >>> CEO, TekLibre, LLC >>> http://www.teklibre.com >>> Tel: 1-669-226-2619 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list >>> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cerowrt-devel mailing list >> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel >> >> --f4f5e8072a80367b7e05673d000a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Now I'm not defending the FCC thinking it has global l= aunch control, but I've actually done some academic reading on space de= bris 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 spa= ce. Someone "going rogue" could have large scale impacts. This is= different than flying planes or setting up a new radio tower without follo= wing the "rules of the road". Space also has the additional facto= rs 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 ho= rizon, and I want to see them come about. But unlike terrestrial radio, fix= ing a mistake isn't currently feasible for small scale companies. Until= that changes, we really need an independent, international organization th= at will verify that these small startups didn't miss something in their= planning. Personally I'd rather be stuck with sub-par terrestrial sign= als than increasing risk to GPS & weather imaging.=C2=A0=C2=A0

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

To me that is analogous to the idea that since = ancient TV sets would show weird ghosts when various kinds of radio transmi= tters were placed nearby (or even be disturbed by power-line noise) that th= e entire effort and rulemaking of the FCC should be forever aimed at protec= ting those TV sets, because someone's grandmother somewhere might still= own one.

=C2=A0

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

=C2=A0

All I can = say is that if you really think about sharing orbital space in a scalable w= ay, there is a lot more "space" available. Which is why I suggest= ed "rules of the road" that operate in everyone's interest an= d privilege no one use over another are almost certainly feasible. As satel= lites get more capable (smaller, lighter, more maneuverable, as they follow= the equivalent of Moore's Law for space) avoidance becomes feasible, *= especially if all satellites can coordinate via low energy networking proto= cols*.

=C2=A0

I know all= the scare stories. Planes will fall out of the sky if someone accidentally= uses a WiFi device or cellphone on airplanes. The Internet will be inhabit= ed only by criminals. Encryption is something no one with "nothing to = hide" needs to use.

=C2=A0

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

=C2=A0

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

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

The portion of space with usable orbital paths is much, mu= ch smaller. One rogue rocket with a poor/flawed understanding of that could= endanger several other satellites. Many systems already in orbit lack the = redundancy to handle a major collision. And any collision in orbit could ru= in the usability of a much larger section of space.=C2=A0

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:18 PM, dpreed@deepplum.com <dpree= d@deepplum.com> wrote:

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

=C2=A0

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

I do believe that th= e international space treaties require our government to control all launch= es.
Launching satellites= without permission is a big no-no.
Note that according = to the article, it is collision risk, rather than radio radiation, that is = the issue here.
Jim

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Dave Taht <= dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
This is awesome. The FCC (whic still doesn&#= 39;t "get" spread spectrum
radio) just discovered it doesn= 9;t have authority over the airwaves of
the whole planet.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites= /fcc-accuses-stealthy-startup-of-launching-rogue-satellites
--

Dave T=C3=A4ht
CEO, TekLibre, L= LC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-669-226-2619
________________________________= _______________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bu= fferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.n= et/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel = mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel=


--f4f5e8072a80367b7e05673d000a--