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 <phe...@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, dpr...@deepplum.com <dpr...@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" <phe...@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 1:34pm
>> To: "dpr...@deepplum.com" <dpr...@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, dpr...@deepplum.com <dpr...@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" <j...@freedesktop.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:26pm
>>> To: "Dave Taht" <dave.t...@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.t...@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

Reply via email to