On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Dave Taht <dave.t...@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 <j...@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 <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
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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

Reply via email to