Email Detail
Show an email
GET /hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/R3CS5EYRP3WBCYS7WACDN3SOVI3X5OPP/
{ "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/R3CS5EYRP3WBCYS7WACDN3SOVI3X5OPP/", "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/", "message_id": "002801c6ee6f$d1b3a630$f50c910c@3GIGP4", "message_id_hash": "R3CS5EYRP3WBCYS7WACDN3SOVI3X5OPP", "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/AHL4IB52FIAV3CR6256BRLPTZTOMH7FU/", "sender": { "address": "btynan (a) omniglobal.net", "mailman_id": null, "emails": null }, "sender_name": "Bill Tynan", "subject": "[eagle] Re: FCC Omnibus R&O", "date": "2006-10-13T02:32:24Z", "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/XRWFP7F7QGCGAM3B4CO227DRZVYJLGUK/", "children": [], "votes": { "likes": 0, "dislikes": 0, "status": "neutral" }, "content": "Bob, Dick, et all:\n\nThis came out of the orbital debris docket which AMSAT-NA commented on, \nextensively a few years back.\n\nAs you probably know, the whole thing came up as a result of a UN initiative \nwhich our government felt bound to adhere-to.\n\n (Ray Soifer joked that Colin told Michael to take care of this one.)\n\nAs I said, we filed extensive comments which should be on the Web site.\n\nObviously, what FCC came up with is completely impractical, especially since \ntheir requirement for being the licensee of a space station is that the \nperson must hold at least a Technician license. That's not the words they \nuse, but that's what it amounts to. Thus, some kid who just get his (or \nher) license so he/she can be the licensee of a cubsat his/her school is \nbuilding, is supposed to be able to meet the requirements of that paragraph.\n\nI guess, we (AMSAT-NA) should come up with some fancy sounding words which \nwe can provide to schools building cubsats and other small amateur \nsatellites, so they can get by the requirement.\n\nIt's also interesting that nothing is said about denying permission to \nlaunch. In fact, there is no requirement to obtain permission to launch. As \nI just said, the satellite itself is not licensed, just any ham who \nvolunteers to take on that responsibility. I'm not even sure, but could be \nwrong, that the notification even asks who the licensee is. I asks about \nthe spcecraft and its characteristics, its orbit etc. The notification \nrequirement is just that, a notification which the Commission supposedly \nforwards to the ITU, not a permission.\n\nMaybe the Commission staff folks when they wrote the thing, were on the \nother side of the looking glass, or maybe it was late at night and they were \njust tired.\n\n73,\n\nBill\n----- Original Message ----- \nFrom: \"Dick Jansson-rr\" <[email protected]>\nTo: \"'Robert McGwier'\" <[email protected]>\nCc: \"'AMSAT BoD'\" <[email protected]>; \"'AMSAT Eagle'\" <[email protected]>; \n\"'AMSAT Advisors'\" <[email protected]>; \"'senior-officers'\" \n<[email protected]>\nSent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:02 AM\nSubject: [eagle] Re: FCC Omnibus R&O\n\n\n> Page 38, paragraph 97.207(1)(iii) is downright confusing. What in the\n> world is the FCC trying to do?\n>\n> Dick Jansson\n> ---------------------------\n> [email protected]\n> ---------------------------\n>\n>\n> -----Original Message-----\n> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf\n> Of Robert McGwier\n> Sent: Thursday, 12 October, 2006 0547\n> Cc: AMSAT BoD; AMSAT Eagle; AMSAT Advisors; senior-officers\n> Subject: [eagle] Re: FCC Omnibus R&O\n>\n>\n> This is, without a doubt, the silliest thing I have ever read on page\n> 38. I can't believe they wrote these things into law. What do you\n> compute the probability of hitting a meteor or space station to be in\n> HEO? But since we only do LEO, we do not need to do anything. ;-)\n>\n> I have been told incorrect information in the last few days. Rinaldo\n> says we need to license, someone else told me we do not have to license\n>\n> and that we can just wait to see what their reaction is to (say) 3.4 GHz\n>\n> on orbit. But it is clear from the regulations as amended in part E of\n>\n> the document (page 20) we have to notify the F.C.C. of our intentions to\n>\n> radiate in advance of launch and we have to be specific and file this\n> with the international bureau. This is tantamount to a license since\n> they get right of refusal. I suggest we find out very early indeed if\n> there is going to be a problem with 3.4 GHz. Rinaldo claimed to me at\n> the symposium that the F.C.C. is going to tell us absolutely NO WAY.\n> After we coordinate with the IARU, I suggest we make this filing. If\n> we are going to be denied 3.4 GHz, we might as well find out now before\n>\n> we expend a lot of effort. I suggest we say 3.4 GHz for regions 2,3 and\n>\n> 1.2 GHz for region 1 in some loosely worded notification.\n>\n>\n> Bob\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> Tom Clark, K3IO wrote:\n>> I'm still in CA and am on a distant sideroad on the information\n>> highway.\n>>\n>> I find out that the Commission on Oct.10 released a Report & Order\n>> that makes lots of changes to the amateur regs.\n>>\n>> Of particular interest in section E on page 20, the FCC addresses\n>> AMSAT's request for more latitude in filing pre-launch information by\n>> reducing the old 17 month window to 3 months. A humorous error appears\n>\n>> in footnote 163 where they suggest all satellites are LEOs.\n>>\n>> Of much more interest is the detailed wording on pages 37/38 where the\n>> Commission in part 97.207 finally defines their view of debris,\n>> mitigation plans, etc.\n>>\n>> The documents can be found at\n>>>\n>>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-149A1.pdf\n>>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-149A1.txt\n>>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-149A1.doc\n>>>\n>> and I have attached the PDF version FYI\n>>\n>> 73, Tom\n>>\n>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------\n>> --\n>>\n>> _______________________________________________\n>> Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected]\n>> http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle\n>>\n>\n>\n> -- \n> AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR,\n> Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair \"You see, wire\n> telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New\n> York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And\n> radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive\n> them there. The only difference is that there is no cat.\" - Einstein\n>\n> _______________________________________________\n> Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA\n> [email protected]\n> http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle\n>\n>\n> _______________________________________________\n> Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA\n> [email protected]\n> http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle\n>\n> \n\n\n", "attachments": [] }