[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

[d***@deepplum.com]

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.

[Dave Taht]

Post by d***@deepplum.com
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.

Post by d***@deepplum.com
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!

Post by d***@deepplum.com
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.

Post by d***@deepplum.com
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.

Post by d***@deepplum.com
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.

Post by d***@deepplum.com
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

Post by d***@deepplum.com
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.

[Jim Gettys]

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

Post by 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 TÀht
CEO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: [phone]
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

[d***@deepplum.com]

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" <***@freedesktop.org>
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:26pm
To: "Dave Taht" <***@gmail.com>
Cc: cerowrt-***@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 <[ ***@gmail.com ]( mailto:***@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 TÀht
CEO, TekLibre, LLC
[ http://www.teklibre.com ]( http://www.teklibre.com )
Tel: [ 1-669-226-2619 ]( tel:[phone] )
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
[ Cerowrt-***@lists.bufferbloat.net ]( mailto:Cerowrt-***@lists.bufferbloat.net )
[ https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel ]( https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel )

[Christopher Robin]

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.

Post by d***@deepplum.com
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-----
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:26pm
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

Post by 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 TÀht
CEO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: [phone]
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

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

[d***@deepplum.com]

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" <***@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 1:34pm
To: "***@deepplum.com" <***@deepplum.com>
Cc: cerowrt-***@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, [ ***@deepplum.com ]( mailto:***@deepplum.com ) <[ ***@deepplum.com ]( mailto:***@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" <[ ***@freedesktop.org ]( mailto:***@freedesktop.org )>
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:26pm
To: "Dave Taht" <[ ***@gmail.com ]( mailto:***@gmail.com )>
Cc: [ cerowrt-***@lists.bufferbloat.net ]( mailto:cerowrt-***@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 <[ ***@gmail.com ]( mailto:***@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 TÀht
CEO, TekLibre, LLC
[ http://www.teklibre.com ]( http://www.teklibre.com )
Tel: [ 1-669-226-2619 ]( tel:[phone] )
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
[ Cerowrt-***@lists.bufferbloat.net ]( mailto:Cerowrt-***@lists.bufferbloat.net )
[ https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel ]( https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel )

[Christopher Robin]

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.

Post by d***@deepplum.com
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-----
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 1:34pm
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.

Post by d***@deepplum.com
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-----
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:26pm
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

Post by 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 TÀht
CEO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: [phone]
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

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

[Jim Gettys]

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

Post by Christopher Robin
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".
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.

Post by d***@deepplum.com
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-----
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 1:34pm
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.

Post by d***@deepplum.com
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-----
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:26pm
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

Post by 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 TÀht
CEO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: [phone]
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

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

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

[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.

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

Post by Christopher Robin
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".
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.

Post by d***@deepplum.com
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-----
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 1:34pm
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.

Post by d***@deepplum.com
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-----
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:26pm
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

Post by 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: [phone]
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

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

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

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

[Jim Gettys]

Post by 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.
​​

​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.

Post by Dave Taht
2) Although the FCC denied the application based on having inadaquate
"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.

Post by Dave Taht
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.​

Post by Dave Taht
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​

Post by Dave Taht

Post by Jim Gettys
The issue is that they can't track satellites that small using current

radar

Post by Jim Gettys
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

Post by Jim Gettys
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

Post by Jim Gettys
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.

Post by Jim Gettys
The FCC was unhappy with that. Launching without solving that
objection is a real "no-no".a
Jim

Post by Christopher Robin
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.

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin
The experts in the field have shown concern for how to handle the

growth of

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin
space traffic for decades, and not just in GEO space. Someone "going

rogue"

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin
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".
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

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin
come about. But unlike terrestrial radio, fixing a mistake isn't

currently

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin
feasible for small scale companies. Until that changes, we really need

an

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin
independent, international organization that will verify that these

small

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin
startups didn't miss something in their planning. Personally I'd rather

be

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin
stuck with sub-par terrestrial signals than increasing risk to GPS &

weather

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin
imaging.

Post by d***@deepplum.com
To me that is analogous to the idea that since ancient TV sets would

show

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin

Post by d***@deepplum.com
weird ghosts when various kinds of radio transmitters were placed

nearby (or

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin

Post by d***@deepplum.com
even be disturbed by power-line noise) that the entire effort and

rulemaking

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin

Post by d***@deepplum.com
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

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin

Post by d***@deepplum.com
next to impossible to legalize WiFi [I know, I was there]. Only a very

key

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin

Post by d***@deepplum.com
person (named M. Marcus, now retired from FCC OET, and a friend) was

able to

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin

Post by d***@deepplum.com
enable the use of WiFi technologies in the ISM bands. Otherwise, the

idea

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin

Post by d***@deepplum.com
that all current poorly scalable systems ought to be allowed to

"block" new

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin

Post by d***@deepplum.com
technologies takes over.
All I can say is that if you really think about sharing orbital space

in

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin

Post by d***@deepplum.com
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

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin

Post by d***@deepplum.com
follow the equivalent of Moore's Law for space) avoidance becomes

feasible,

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin

Post by d***@deepplum.com
*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

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin

Post by d***@deepplum.com
accidentally uses a WiFi device or cellphone on airplanes. The

Internet will

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin

Post by d***@deepplum.com
be inhabited only by criminals. Encryption is something no one with

"nothing

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin

Post by d***@deepplum.com
to hide" needs to use.
Please. Think harder. Become an expert on space technology, etc. Not

just

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin

Post by d***@deepplum.com
someone who "knowledgably repeats lines from news media articles" as

so many

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin

Post by d***@deepplum.com
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

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin

Post by d***@deepplum.com
all.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 1:34pm
Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee
The portion of space with usable orbital paths is much, much smaller.

One

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin

Post by d***@deepplum.com
rogue rocket with a poor/flawed understanding of that could endanger

several

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin

Post by d***@deepplum.com
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.

Post by d***@deepplum.com
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

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin

Post by d***@deepplum.com

Post by d***@deepplum.com
quite big.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:26pm
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

Post by 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

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Christopher Robin

Post by d***@deepplum.com

Post by d***@deepplum.com

Post by Dave Taht
--
Dave TÀht
CEO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: [phone]
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

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

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

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

--
Dave TÀht
CEO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: [phone]

[Dave Taht]

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by 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.

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.

Post by Jim Gettys
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...

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Dave Taht
2) Although the FCC denied the application based on having inadaquate
"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.

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Dave Taht
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!

Post by Jim Gettys

Post by Dave Taht
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

Post by Dave Taht

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

Post by Christopher Robin
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".
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.

Post by d***@deepplum.com
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-----
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 1:34pm
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.

Post by d***@deepplum.com
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-----
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:26pm
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

Post by 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: [phone]
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

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

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

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

--
Dave Täht
CEO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: [phone]

[Jonathan Morton]

Post by Dave Taht

Post by Jim Gettys
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

[Christopher Robin]

Post by Dave Taht
2) Although the FCC denied the application based on having inadaquate
"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.

[Dave Taht]

Post by Dave Taht
2) Although the FCC denied the application based on having inadaquate
"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.

[Matt Taggart]

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).

[v***@vt.edu]

Post by Dave Taht
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.

[Dave Taht]

Post by v***@vt.edu

Post by Dave Taht
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?

Post by v***@vt.edu
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.

Post by v***@vt.edu
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.

Post by v***@vt.edu
And NASA has an in-progress experiment to measure how often the really
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/sensor_to_monitor_orbital_debris_outside_ISS

thx for the pointer!

Post by v***@vt.edu
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

[Matt Taggart]

Post by Dave Taht
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.