<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Dave Taht <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com" target="_blank">dave.taht@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">A couple things on the spacebee.<br>
<br>
0) I LOVE the concept. Of late (due to my boat) I'd been digging into<br>
the evolution of AIS repeaters, and that insanely primitive protocol,<br>
and the hacks to make that scale over two channels of VHF up into<br>
orbit.<br>
<br>
1) The costs of launching cubesats has dropped dramatically. I believe<br>
this particular launch cost about $.5m per 1u device. (I was paying<br>
attention due to my interest in Planetary Resources' work. Their 6u<br>
arkyd-3 spacecraft was in this payload and is functioning nominally.)<br>
<br>
Spacebee - Having a payload 1/4th the size of a cubesat *work* and be<br>
useable! is a major advance. And is 1/4th the space junk. Worrying<br>
about something smaller than baseball hitting anything strikes me as<br>
control freakery at the FCC.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small;display:inline"></div><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Something that size, hitting at thousands of miles/hour, will destroy what it hits.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Size, until the object gets really small, really doesn't matter.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
2) Although the FCC denied the application based on having inadaquate<br>
radar reflectivity, according to their standards, the article states:<br>
<br>
"Websites dedicated to tracking operational satellites show the<br>
SpaceBees in orbits virtually identical to those specified in Swarm’s<br>
application." Ground stations can only get better.<br>
<br>
3) most (all?) 1u spacecraft have no maneuvering capability and half<br>
of cubesats tend to fail quickly, so there will be an increasing<br>
amount of space junk in low orbits regardless. But there's nothing to<br>
explode on board ('cept maybe a battery?), and probably the biggest<br>
source of space junk has been explosions. Yes, there have been<br>
collisions, but the smaller the device, the smaller the chance of<br>
collision.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Objects in low earth orbits don't last very long; they decay quickly</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">due to drag.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">So low earth orbit just doesn't have much to hit in the first place, and</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">a satellite there doesn't live very long either.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Higher orbits are much more problematic.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
4) Flat out bypassing a staid and boring agency, getting the thing<br>
launched, and proving the concept is just so american! but unless the<br>
regulations are reformed I could certainly see more and more sats<br>
created outside the USA. ITAR is a real PITA, and now testing,<br>
development, and regulation now dominate over launch costs.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Read the wikipedia article, and the analysis of the Chinese collision.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision</a></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">The Kesseler syndrome is a real problem.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
5) I'd misread the article, and interpreted part of the denial based<br>
on some longstanding issues they've had with not allowing spread<br>
spectrum radio in orbit.<br>
<br>
I'd love to see an independent, fast-moving, external and<br>
international group just start ignoring the FCC on certain matters, or<br>
acting in concert to help push small sats forward, faster.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Again, there are limitations on how small an object they can track via radar.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"> - Jim</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail-HOEnZb"><div class="gmail-h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:12 AM, Jim Gettys <<a href="mailto:jg@freedesktop.org">jg@freedesktop.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> The issue is that they can't track satellites that small using current radar<br>
> technology. They literally move satellites out of the way<br>
> if there is some possibility of collision. If there is a collision, then<br>
> you get lots of debris, that just makes the debris<br>
> problem worse.<br>
><br>
> See: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<wbr>2009_satellite_collision</a><br>
><br>
> Certain orbits are much more of an issue than others; for example, low earth<br>
> orbits decay quickly enough that there is little issue, as the satellites<br>
> will<br>
> reenter quickly enough that there is unlikely to be a problem. Other orbits<br>
> are seldom used, so there isn't much to run into.<br>
><br>
> The satellite's vendor proposed using on-board GPS to send its location.<br>
><br>
> The problem is that if the satellite fails, they would get no information.<br>
> The FCC was unhappy with that. Launching without solving that<br>
> objection is a real "no-no".a<br>
><br>
> Jim<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Christopher Robin <<a href="mailto:pheoni@gmail.com">pheoni@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Now I'm not defending the FCC thinking it has global launch control, but<br>
>> I've actually done some academic reading on space debris and usable orbits.<br>
>> The experts in the field have shown concern for how to handle the growth of<br>
>> space traffic for decades, and not just in GEO space. Someone "going rogue"<br>
>> could have large scale impacts. This is different than flying planes or<br>
>> setting up a new radio tower without following the "rules of the road".<br>
>> Space also has the additional factors that:<br>
>><br>
>> 1) there is currently no way (realistic) to clean up after an event in<br>
>> space<br>
>> 2) any collision events in space tend to cascade into a much larger<br>
>> problem<br>
>><br>
>> There are some awesome technologies on the horizon, and I want to see them<br>
>> come about. But unlike terrestrial radio, fixing a mistake isn't currently<br>
>> feasible for small scale companies. Until that changes, we really need an<br>
>> independent, international organization that will verify that these small<br>
>> startups didn't miss something in their planning. Personally I'd rather be<br>
>> stuck with sub-par terrestrial signals than increasing risk to GPS & weather<br>
>> imaging.<br>
>><br>
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:10 PM, <a href="mailto:dpreed@deepplum.com">dpreed@deepplum.com</a> <<a href="mailto:dpreed@deepplum.com">dpreed@deepplum.com</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> To me that is analogous to the idea that since ancient TV sets would show<br>
>>> weird ghosts when various kinds of radio transmitters were placed nearby (or<br>
>>> even be disturbed by power-line noise) that the entire effort and rulemaking<br>
>>> of the FCC should be forever aimed at protecting those TV sets, because<br>
>>> someone's grandmother somewhere might still own one.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> It's a technologically backwards idea. It's the kind of idea that made it<br>
>>> next to impossible to legalize WiFi [I know, I was there]. Only a very key<br>
>>> person (named M. Marcus, now retired from FCC OET, and a friend) was able to<br>
>>> enable the use of WiFi technologies in the ISM bands. Otherwise, the idea<br>
>>> that all current poorly scalable systems ought to be allowed to "block" new<br>
>>> technologies takes over.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> All I can say is that if you really think about sharing orbital space in<br>
>>> a scalable way, there is a lot more "space" available. Which is why I<br>
>>> suggested "rules of the road" that operate in everyone's interest and<br>
>>> privilege no one use over another are almost certainly feasible. As<br>
>>> satellites get more capable (smaller, lighter, more maneuverable, as they<br>
>>> follow the equivalent of Moore's Law for space) avoidance becomes feasible,<br>
>>> *especially if all satellites can coordinate via low energy networking<br>
>>> protocols*.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> I know all the scare stories. Planes will fall out of the sky if someone<br>
>>> accidentally uses a WiFi device or cellphone on airplanes. The Internet will<br>
>>> be inhabited only by criminals. Encryption is something no one with "nothing<br>
>>> to hide" needs to use.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Please. Think harder. Become an expert on space technology, etc. Not just<br>
>>> someone who "knowledgably repeats lines from news media articles" as so many<br>
>>> do.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> My point is that while it may be that *geosynchronous equatorial orbit*<br>
>>> is very tightly occupied, most MEO and LEO space is not densely occupied at<br>
>>> all.<br>
>>><br>
>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>> From: "Christopher Robin" <<a href="mailto:pheoni@gmail.com">pheoni@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 1:34pm<br>
>>> To: "<a href="mailto:dpreed@deepplum.com">dpreed@deepplum.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:dpreed@deepplum.com">dpreed@deepplum.com</a>><br>
>>> Cc: <a href="mailto:cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net">cerowrt-devel@lists.<wbr>bufferbloat.net</a><br>
>>> Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee<br>
>>><br>
>>> The portion of space with usable orbital paths is much, much smaller. One<br>
>>> rogue rocket with a poor/flawed understanding of that could endanger several<br>
>>> other satellites. Many systems already in orbit lack the redundancy to<br>
>>> handle a major collision. And any collision in orbit could ruin the<br>
>>> usability of a much larger section of space.<br>
>>><br>
>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:18 PM, <a href="mailto:dpreed@deepplum.com">dpreed@deepplum.com</a><br>
>>> <<a href="mailto:dpreed@deepplum.com">dpreed@deepplum.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Well, that may be the case, but it's a non-scalable and highly<br>
>>>> corruptible system. IMO it's probably unnecesary, too. Space is actually<br>
>>>> quite big.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>>> From: "Jim Gettys" <<a href="mailto:jg@freedesktop.org">jg@freedesktop.org</a>><br>
>>>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:26pm<br>
>>>> To: "Dave Taht" <<a href="mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com">dave.taht@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>>> Cc: <a href="mailto:cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net">cerowrt-devel@lists.<wbr>bufferbloat.net</a><br>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I do believe that the international space treaties require our<br>
>>>> government to control all launches.<br>
>>>> Launching satellites without permission is a big no-no.<br>
>>>> Note that according to the article, it is collision risk, rather than<br>
>>>> radio radiation, that is the issue here.<br>
>>>> Jim<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Dave Taht <<a href="mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com">dave.taht@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> This is awesome. The FCC (whic still doesn't "get" spread spectrum<br>
>>>>> radio) just discovered it doesn't have authority over the airwaves of<br>
>>>>> the whole planet.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> <a href="https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites/fcc-accuses-stealthy-startup-of-launching-rogue-satellites" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://spectrum.ieee.org/<wbr>tech-talk/aerospace/<wbr>satellites/fcc-accuses-<wbr>stealthy-startup-of-launching-<wbr>rogue-satellites</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> --<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Dave Täht<br>
>>>>> CEO, TekLibre, LLC<br>
>>>>> <a href="http://www.teklibre.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.teklibre.com</a><br>
>>>>> Tel: <a href="tel:1-669-226-2619" value="+16692262619">1-669-226-2619</a><br>
>>>>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>>>>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net">Cerowrt-devel@lists.<wbr>bufferbloat.net</a><br>
>>>>> <a href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/<wbr>listinfo/cerowrt-devel</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>>>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net">Cerowrt-devel@lists.<wbr>bufferbloat.net</a><br>
>>>> <a href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/<wbr>listinfo/cerowrt-devel</a><br>
>>>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net">Cerowrt-devel@lists.<wbr>bufferbloat.net</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/<wbr>listinfo/cerowrt-devel</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net">Cerowrt-devel@lists.<wbr>bufferbloat.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/<wbr>listinfo/cerowrt-devel</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
Dave Täht<br>
CEO, TekLibre, LLC<br>
<a href="http://www.teklibre.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.teklibre.com</a><br>
Tel: <a href="tel:1-669-226-2619" value="+16692262619">1-669-226-2619</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>