Just saw this article. The FCC is the controlling agency for the size of a satellite? Not NASA or another agency of the government? Guess that is part of the process that AMSAT has to go thru to get a bird approved. Don't launch these tiny satellites, the FCC said. They're apparently in space anyway
| | | | | |
|
| | | | Don't launch these tiny satellites, the FCC said. They're apparentl... By Samantha Masunaga Menlo Park small-satellite firm Swarm Technologies apparently launched four tiny satellites despite the disappro... | |
|
|
73 Mike K4MIA
| | Virus-free. www.avast.com |
Yes. The applicable excerpt for amateur satellites from 47 CFR §97.207:
(g) The license grantee of each space station must make the following written notifications to the International Bureau, FCC, Washington, DC 20554.
(1) A pre-space notification within 30 days after the date of launch vehicle determination, but no later than 90 days before integration of the space station into the launch vehicle. The notification must be in accordance with the provisions of Articles 9 and 11 of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Radio Regulations and must specify the information required by Appendix 4 and Resolution No. 642 of the ITU Radio Regulations. The notification must also include a description of the design and operational strategies that the space station will use to mitigate orbital debris, including the following information:
(i) A statement that the space station licensee has assessed and limited the amount of debris released in a planned manner during normal operations, and has assessed and limited the probability of the space station becoming a source of debris by collisions with small debris or meteoroids that could cause loss of control and prevent post-mission disposal;
(ii) A statement that the space station licensee has assessed and limited the probability of accidental explosions during and after completion of mission operations. This statement must include a demonstration that debris generation will not result from the conversion of energy sources on board the spacecraft into energy that fragments the spacecraft. Energy sources include chemical, pressure, and kinetic energy. This demonstration should address whether stored energy will be removed at the spacecraft's end of life, by depleting residual fuel and leaving all fuel line valves open, venting any pressurized system, leaving all batteries in a permanent discharge state, and removing any remaining source of stored energy, or through other equivalent procedures specifically disclosed in the application;
(iii) A statement that the space station licensee has assessed and limited the probability of the space station becoming a source of debris by collisions with large debris or other operational space stations. Where a space station will be launched into a low-Earth orbit that is identical, or very similar, to an orbit used by other space stations, the statement must include an analysis of the potential risk of collision and a description of what measures the space station operator plans to take to avoid in-orbit collisions. If the space station licensee is relying on coordination with another system, the statement must indicate what steps have been taken to contact, and ascertain the likelihood of successful coordination of physical operations with, the other system. The statement must disclose the accuracy—if any—with which orbital parameters of non-geostationary satellite orbit space stations will be maintained, including apogee, perigee, inclination, and the right ascension of the ascending node(s). In the event that a system is not able to maintain orbital tolerances, i.e., it lacks a propulsion system for orbital maintenance, that fact should be included in the debris mitigation disclosure. Such systems must also indicate the anticipated evolution over time of the orbit of the proposed satellite or satellites. Where a space station requests the assignment of a geostationary-Earth orbit location, it must assess whether there are any known satellites located at, or reasonably expected to be located at, the requested orbital location, or assigned in the vicinity of that location, such that the station keeping volumes of the respective satellites might overlap. If so, the statement must include a statement as to the identities of those parties and the measures that will be taken to prevent collisions;
(iv) A statement detailing the post-mission disposal plans for the space station at end of life, including the quantity of fuel—if any—that will be reserved for post-mission disposal maneuvers. For geostationary-Earth orbit space stations, the statement must disclose the altitude selected for a post-mission disposal orbit and the calculations that are used in deriving the disposal altitude. The statement must also include a casualty risk assessment if planned post-mission disposal involves atmospheric re-entry of the space station. In general, an assessment should include an estimate as to whether portions of the spacecraft will survive re-entry and reach the surface of the Earth, as well as an estimate of the resulting probability of human casualty.
(v) If any material item described in this notification changes before launch, a replacement pre-space notification shall be filed with the International Bureau no later than 90 days before integration of the space station into the launch vehicle.
(2) An in-space station notification is required no later than 7 days following initiation of space station transmissions. This notification must update the information contained in the pre-space notification.
(3) A post-space station notification is required no later than 3 months after termination of the space station transmissions. When termination of transmissions is ordered by the FCC, the notification is required no later than 24 hours after termination of transmissions.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:51 PM, radiomb [email protected] wrote:
Just saw this article. The FCC is the controlling agency for the size of a satellite? Not NASA or another agency of the government? Guess that is part of the process that AMSAT has to go thru to get a bird approved. Don't launch these tiny satellites, the FCC said. They're apparently in space anyway
| | | | | |
|
| | | | Don't launch these tiny satellites, the FCC said. They're apparentl... By Samantha Masunaga Menlo Park small-satellite firm Swarm Technologies apparently launched four tiny satellites despite the disappro... | |
|
|
73 Mike K4MIA
| | Virus-free. www.avast.com |
Sent via [email protected]. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
More good discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16555106
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:55 PM Paul Stoetzer [email protected] wrote:
Yes. The applicable excerpt for amateur satellites from 47 CFR §97.207:
(g) The license grantee of each space station must make the following written notifications to the International Bureau, FCC, Washington, DC 20554.
(1) A pre-space notification within 30 days after the date of launch vehicle determination, but no later than 90 days before integration of the space station into the launch vehicle. The notification must be in accordance with the provisions of Articles 9 and 11 of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Radio Regulations and must specify the information required by Appendix 4 and Resolution No. 642 of the ITU Radio Regulations. The notification must also include a description of the design and operational strategies that the space station will use to mitigate orbital debris, including the following information:
(i) A statement that the space station licensee has assessed and limited the amount of debris released in a planned manner during normal operations, and has assessed and limited the probability of the space station becoming a source of debris by collisions with small debris or meteoroids that could cause loss of control and prevent post-mission disposal;
(ii) A statement that the space station licensee has assessed and limited the probability of accidental explosions during and after completion of mission operations. This statement must include a demonstration that debris generation will not result from the conversion of energy sources on board the spacecraft into energy that fragments the spacecraft. Energy sources include chemical, pressure, and kinetic energy. This demonstration should address whether stored energy will be removed at the spacecraft's end of life, by depleting residual fuel and leaving all fuel line valves open, venting any pressurized system, leaving all batteries in a permanent discharge state, and removing any remaining source of stored energy, or through other equivalent procedures specifically disclosed in the application;
(iii) A statement that the space station licensee has assessed and limited the probability of the space station becoming a source of debris by collisions with large debris or other operational space stations. Where a space station will be launched into a low-Earth orbit that is identical, or very similar, to an orbit used by other space stations, the statement must include an analysis of the potential risk of collision and a description of what measures the space station operator plans to take to avoid in-orbit collisions. If the space station licensee is relying on coordination with another system, the statement must indicate what steps have been taken to contact, and ascertain the likelihood of successful coordination of physical operations with, the other system. The statement must disclose the accuracy—if any—with which orbital parameters of non-geostationary satellite orbit space stations will be maintained, including apogee, perigee, inclination, and the right ascension of the ascending node(s). In the event that a system is not able to maintain orbital tolerances, i.e., it lacks a propulsion system for orbital maintenance, that fact should be included in the debris mitigation disclosure. Such systems must also indicate the anticipated evolution over time of the orbit of the proposed satellite or satellites. Where a space station requests the assignment of a geostationary-Earth orbit location, it must assess whether there are any known satellites located at, or reasonably expected to be located at, the requested orbital location, or assigned in the vicinity of that location, such that the station keeping volumes of the respective satellites might overlap. If so, the statement must include a statement as to the identities of those parties and the measures that will be taken to prevent collisions;
(iv) A statement detailing the post-mission disposal plans for the space station at end of life, including the quantity of fuel—if any—that will be reserved for post-mission disposal maneuvers. For geostationary-Earth orbit space stations, the statement must disclose the altitude selected for a post-mission disposal orbit and the calculations that are used in deriving the disposal altitude. The statement must also include a casualty risk assessment if planned post-mission disposal involves atmospheric re-entry of the space station. In general, an assessment should include an estimate as to whether portions of the spacecraft will survive re-entry and reach the surface of the Earth, as well as an estimate of the resulting probability of human casualty.
(v) If any material item described in this notification changes before launch, a replacement pre-space notification shall be filed with the International Bureau no later than 90 days before integration of the space station into the launch vehicle.
(2) An in-space station notification is required no later than 7 days following initiation of space station transmissions. This notification must update the information contained in the pre-space notification.
(3) A post-space station notification is required no later than 3 months after termination of the space station transmissions. When termination of transmissions is ordered by the FCC, the notification is required no later than 24 hours after termination of transmissions.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:51 PM, radiomb [email protected] wrote:
Just saw this article. The FCC is the controlling agency for the size
of a satellite? Not NASA or another agency of the government? Guess that is part of the process that AMSAT has to go thru to get a bird approved.
Don't launch these tiny satellites, the FCC said. They're apparently in
space anyway
| | | | | |
|
| | | | Don't launch these tiny satellites, the FCC said. They're apparentl... By Samantha Masunaga Menlo Park small-satellite firm Swarm Technologies
apparently launched four tiny satellites despite the disappro... | |
|
|
73 Mike K4MIA
| | Virus-free. www.avast.com |
Sent via [email protected]. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
Opinions expressed
are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
program!
Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via [email protected]. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Are these things in a safe orbit? What frequencies do they use? I would hate for one if these .25U objects to hit one of our sats and completely wipe us out. It seems from the two articles i read on this incident a bunch of people messed up. Including swarm not understanding the situation. -------- Original message --------From: radiomb [email protected] Date: 3/13/18 3:51 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Amsat BB [email protected] Subject: [amsat-bb] FCC and Satellite Size Just saw this article. The FCC is the controlling agency for the size of a satellite? Not NASA or another agency of the government? Guess that is part of the process that AMSAT has to go thru to get a bird approved. Don't launch these tiny satellites, the FCC said. They're apparently in space anyway | | | | | |
|
| | | | Don't launch these tiny satellites, the FCC said. They're apparentl... By Samantha Masunaga Menlo Park small-satellite firm Swarm Technologies apparently launched four tiny satellites despite the disappro... | |
|
|
73 Mike K4MIA
| | Virus-free. www.avast.com |
_______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
The denied application was for transmissions in the 137 MHz Space Operations Service band.
The orbits are 505 km x 490 km, inclined 97.55 degrees. They are cataloged by Space-Track (see objects 43139 - 43142), indicating at least the ability to track them at some points.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Joe N3XLS via AMSAT-BB [email protected] wrote:
Are these things in a safe orbit? What frequencies do they use? I would hate for one if these .25U objects to hit one of our sats and completely wipe us out. It seems from the two articles i read on this incident a bunch of people messed up. Including swarm not understanding the situation. -------- Original message --------From: radiomb [email protected] Date: 3/13/18 3:51 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Amsat BB [email protected] Subject: [amsat-bb] FCC and Satellite Size Just saw this article. The FCC is the controlling agency for the size of a satellite? Not NASA or another agency of the government? Guess that is part of the process that AMSAT has to go thru to get a bird approved. Don't launch these tiny satellites, the FCC said. They're apparently in space anyway
| | | | | |
|
| | | | Don't launch these tiny satellites, the FCC said. They're apparentl... By Samantha Masunaga Menlo Park small-satellite firm Swarm Technologies apparently launched four tiny satellites despite the disappro... | |
|
|
73 Mike K4MIA
| | Virus-free. www.avast.com |
Sent via [email protected]. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
I've been following this as well.....and am confused about one or two things...maybe someone can enlighten me?
This article has links to the actual exchanges between the company and the FCC for folks that are interested in the 'source material': https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites/fcc-accuses-stealth...
Seems the problem was that they were too small (0.25U) for the ground based space situational awareness tracking network to reliably track them for the purpose of collision avoidance and prediction for other spacecraft operators. They mentioned the addition of retro-reflectors to aid in ground based tracking by increasing their radar cross section, but FCC said this wasn't good enough. That was the grounds for rejection from the FCC, too small to be tracked.
To be clear, the ACTUAL problem was that despite the fact the FCC turned them down, it appears they worked the system to launch anyway, same ride as AO-92 (so roughly the same orbit, though obviously there has been separation over time)! Not good.
So putting aside the apparent disregard for the FCC...........why did they get rejected in the first place? FCC said they were too small....but............
I'm pretty sure the 0.25U form factor is something that Bob Twiggs (of cubesat specification fame, as well as had a hand in MO-76) is pushing. I forget the name they came up with for the 0.25U form factor, but they had a new one (different I think than pocketQub form factor, like MO-76). How then did MO-76 (aka Eagle-2, aka $50Sat) get up? It is a 'pocket cube' sized spacecraft (roughly maybe 1/3 the size of a 1U cubesat). Also, how did KickSat get approval with all of its little roughly 1" by 1" deployable 'Sprites?' I'm pretty sure both MO-76 and Kicksat were approved by the FCC. Kicksat never deployed its Sprites so no 'tracking data' for that, but MO-76 had reliable TLEs throughout its life (and still does, most recent TLE epoch from a day or two ago on celestrak). Also, if they are too small to reliably track, then how are their TLEs getting updated reliably (their called SpaceBEEs for those interested, index like APRS SSID, so SpaceBEE-1, SpaceBEE-2, etc. and their are four of them total)? Satflare and N2YO are showing them (though couldn't find them on Celestrak....).
Did the Amateur Radio nature of MO-76 and Kicksat factor into their approval decision (the SpaceBEEs were an experimental filing and not in the Amateur Satellite Service)? Maybe that was the trick? Amateur Radio Licensing is more of a notification process to the FCC (and coordination with IARU), where as the Swarm Technology folks were straight up applying for a new license under experimental rules? Both routes have to submit information according to what Paul mentioned, but since the other two were 'already licensed' there was nothing for the FCC to actually 'grant' ? (this is pure speculation, but I still wonder....)
Finally, Kicksat was deployed from ISS and the 'mothership' was a 3U (certainly trackable). Maybe since the sprite deployment was planned for after the deployment from the ISS at lower altitudes they didn't really care about tracking since they were going to burn up in a relatively short time anyway. Also, the 'cloud of sprites' deployed from kicksat would have been all around the 3U, so maybe that was sufficient for tracking purposes? Still doesn't answer the MO-76 question though........
Interesting topic to see how this plays out........Already relevant to this group with respect to MO-76, and potentially relevant for future AMSAT missions if launch costs can be further reduced below a 1U form factor.......
I ask because we are interested in the smaller form factor stuff here at VT, so this is pretty important if the minimum size is dictated by regulation and not technology. Seems to me that there is a 'gray area' in terms of what can and can't be tracked (maybe intentional to not reveal too much of the SSA capability?). From a regulatory perspective maybe MO-76 and KickSat 'slipped through' because they were older launches and the FCC wasn't prepared for something that small and has since changed its process to include asking the SSA folks before approving?
-Zach
Research Associate Aerospace Systems Lab Ted & Karyn Hume Center for National Security & Technology Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University Work Phone: 540-231-4174 Cell Phone: 540-808-6305
On 3/13/2018 5:04 PM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
The denied application was for transmissions in the 137 MHz Space Operations Service band.
The orbits are 505 km x 490 km, inclined 97.55 degrees. They are cataloged by Space-Track (see objects 43139 - 43142), indicating at least the ability to track them at some points.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Joe N3XLS via AMSAT-BB [email protected] wrote:
Are these things in a safe orbit? What frequencies do they use? I would hate for one if these .25U objects to hit one of our sats and completely wipe us out. It seems from the two articles i read on this incident a bunch of people messed up. Including swarm not understanding the situation. -------- Original message --------From: radiomb [email protected] Date: 3/13/18 3:51 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Amsat BB [email protected] Subject: [amsat-bb] FCC and Satellite Size Just saw this article. The FCC is the controlling agency for the size of a satellite? Not NASA or another agency of the government? Guess that is part of the process that AMSAT has to go thru to get a bird approved. Don't launch these tiny satellites, the FCC said. They're apparently in space anyway
| | | | | |
|| | | | Don't launch these tiny satellites, the FCC said. They're apparentl... By Samantha Masunaga Menlo Park small-satellite firm Swarm Technologies apparently launched four tiny satellites despite the disappro... | |
|
|
73 Mike K4MIA
| | Virus-free. www.avast.com |
Sent via [email protected]. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via [email protected]. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
MO-76 (50dollarsat) was licensed by the FCC and had to submit a debri mitigation plan. 50dollarsat was approximately 2" x 2" x 3" and most certainly is being tracked by radar without retro reflectors. You can find all about 50dollarsat at 50dollarsat.info with links to schematics, pictures and descriptions. One of the things that reduces the time in orbit is the very low mass of 210 grams. That in addition to Kapton sail brakes on the antenna's to increase drag made the deorbit prediction to be less than 10 years. The "too small" argument does not seem to hold water in my opinion. However, that doesn't mean they should have violated the law.
Howie AB2S
________________________________ From: AMSAT-BB [email protected] on behalf of Zach Leffke [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 5:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] FCC and Satellite Size
I've been following this as well.....and am confused about one or two things...maybe someone can enlighten me?
This article has links to the actual exchanges between the company and the FCC for folks that are interested in the 'source material': https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fspectrum.i...
Seems the problem was that they were too small (0.25U) for the ground based space situational awareness tracking network to reliably track them for the purpose of collision avoidance and prediction for other spacecraft operators. They mentioned the addition of retro-reflectors to aid in ground based tracking by increasing their radar cross section, but FCC said this wasn't good enough. That was the grounds for rejection from the FCC, too small to be tracked.
To be clear, the ACTUAL problem was that despite the fact the FCC turned them down, it appears they worked the system to launch anyway, same ride as AO-92 (so roughly the same orbit, though obviously there has been separation over time)! Not good.
So putting aside the apparent disregard for the FCC...........why did they get rejected in the first place? FCC said they were too small....but............
I'm pretty sure the 0.25U form factor is something that Bob Twiggs (of cubesat specification fame, as well as had a hand in MO-76) is pushing. I forget the name they came up with for the 0.25U form factor, but they had a new one (different I think than pocketQub form factor, like MO-76). How then did MO-76 (aka Eagle-2, aka $50Sat) get up? It is a 'pocket cube' sized spacecraft (roughly maybe 1/3 the size of a 1U cubesat). Also, how did KickSat get approval with all of its little roughly 1" by 1" deployable 'Sprites?' I'm pretty sure both MO-76 and Kicksat were approved by the FCC. Kicksat never deployed its Sprites so no 'tracking data' for that, but MO-76 had reliable TLEs throughout its life (and still does, most recent TLE epoch from a day or two ago on celestrak). Also, if they are too small to reliably track, then how are their TLEs getting updated reliably (their called SpaceBEEs for those interested, index like APRS SSID, so SpaceBEE-1, SpaceBEE-2, etc. and their are four of them total)? Satflare and N2YO are showing them (though couldn't find them on Celestrak....).
Did the Amateur Radio nature of MO-76 and Kicksat factor into their approval decision (the SpaceBEEs were an experimental filing and not in the Amateur Satellite Service)? Maybe that was the trick? Amateur Radio Licensing is more of a notification process to the FCC (and coordination with IARU), where as the Swarm Technology folks were straight up applying for a new license under experimental rules? Both routes have to submit information according to what Paul mentioned, but since the other two were 'already licensed' there was nothing for the FCC to actually 'grant' ? (this is pure speculation, but I still wonder....)
Finally, Kicksat was deployed from ISS and the 'mothership' was a 3U (certainly trackable). Maybe since the sprite deployment was planned for after the deployment from the ISS at lower altitudes they didn't really care about tracking since they were going to burn up in a relatively short time anyway. Also, the 'cloud of sprites' deployed from kicksat would have been all around the 3U, so maybe that was sufficient for tracking purposes? Still doesn't answer the MO-76 question though........
Interesting topic to see how this plays out........Already relevant to this group with respect to MO-76, and potentially relevant for future AMSAT missions if launch costs can be further reduced below a 1U form factor.......
I ask because we are interested in the smaller form factor stuff here at VT, so this is pretty important if the minimum size is dictated by regulation and not technology. Seems to me that there is a 'gray area' in terms of what can and can't be tracked (maybe intentional to not reveal too much of the SSA capability?). From a regulatory perspective maybe MO-76 and KickSat 'slipped through' because they were older launches and the FCC wasn't prepared for something that small and has since changed its process to include asking the SSA folks before approving?
-Zach
Research Associate Aerospace Systems Lab Ted & Karyn Hume Center for National Security & Technology Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University Work Phone: 540-231-4174 Cell Phone: 540-808-6305
On 3/13/2018 5:04 PM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
The denied application was for transmissions in the 137 MHz Space Operations Service band.
The orbits are 505 km x 490 km, inclined 97.55 degrees. They are cataloged by Space-Track (see objects 43139 - 43142), indicating at least the ability to track them at some points.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Joe N3XLS via AMSAT-BB [email protected] wrote:
Are these things in a safe orbit? What frequencies do they use? I would hate for one if these .25U objects to hit one of our sats and completely wipe us out. It seems from the two articles i read on this incident a bunch of people messed up. Including swarm not understanding the situation. -------- Original message --------From: radiomb [email protected] Date: 3/13/18 3:51 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Amsat BB [email protected] Subject: [amsat-bb] FCC and Satellite Size Just saw this article. The FCC is the controlling agency for the size of a satellite? Not NASA or another agency of the government? Guess that is part of the process that AMSAT has to go thru to get a bird approved. Don't launch these tiny satellites, the FCC said. They're apparently in space anyway
| | | | | |
|| | | | Don't launch these tiny satellites, the FCC said. They're apparentl... By Samantha Masunaga Menlo Park small-satellite firm Swarm Technologies apparently launched four tiny satellites despite the disappro... | |
|
|
73 Mike K4MIA
| | Virus-free. https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.avast.com&data=0... |
Sent via [email protected]. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amsat.o... _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amsat.o...
Sent via [email protected]. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amsat.o...
_______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amsat.o...
N2yo shows them, they are really close all in the same orbit like a train. What are they doing with them so close together? -------- Original message --------From: Paul Stoetzer [email protected] Date: 3/13/18 5:04 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Joe N3XLS [email protected] Cc: radiomb [email protected], Amsat BB [email protected] Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] FCC and Satellite Size The denied application was for transmissions in the 137 MHz Space Operations Service band.
The orbits are 505 km x 490 km, inclined 97.55 degrees. They are cataloged by Space-Track (see objects 43139 - 43142), indicating at least the ability to track them at some points.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Joe N3XLS via AMSAT-BB [email protected] wrote:
Are these things in a safe orbit? What frequencies do they use? I would hate for one if these .25U objects to hit one of our sats and completely wipe us out. It seems from the two articles i read on this incident a bunch of people messed up. Including swarm not understanding the situation. -------- Original message --------From: radiomb [email protected] Date: 3/13/18 3:51 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Amsat BB [email protected] Subject: [amsat-bb] FCC and Satellite Size Just saw this article. The FCC is the controlling agency for the size of a satellite? Not NASA or another agency of the government? Guess that is part of the process that AMSAT has to go thru to get a bird approved. Don't launch these tiny satellites, the FCC said. They're apparently in space anyway
| | | | | |
|
| | | | Don't launch these tiny satellites, the FCC said. They're apparentl... By Samantha Masunaga Menlo Park small-satellite firm Swarm Technologies apparently launched four tiny satellites despite the disappro... | |
|
|
73 Mike K4MIA
| | Virus-free. www.avast.com |
Sent via [email protected]. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
They were all deployed on the same launch and if they're all the same size and mass, they won't drift too far apart.
It seems these are more a proof of concept than an operational satellite system.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Joe N3XLS via AMSAT-BB [email protected] wrote:
N2yo shows them, they are really close all in the same orbit like a train. What are they doing with them so close together? -------- Original message --------From: Paul Stoetzer [email protected] Date: 3/13/18 5:04 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Joe N3XLS [email protected] Cc: radiomb [email protected], Amsat BB [email protected] Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] FCC and Satellite Size The denied application was for transmissions in the 137 MHz Space Operations Service band.
The orbits are 505 km x 490 km, inclined 97.55 degrees. They are cataloged by Space-Track (see objects 43139 - 43142), indicating at least the ability to track them at some points.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Joe N3XLS via AMSAT-BB [email protected] wrote:
Are these things in a safe orbit? What frequencies do they use? I would hate for one if these .25U objects to hit one of our sats and completely wipe us out. It seems from the two articles i read on this incident a bunch of people messed up. Including swarm not understanding the situation. -------- Original message --------From: radiomb [email protected] Date: 3/13/18 3:51 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Amsat BB [email protected] Subject: [amsat-bb] FCC and Satellite Size Just saw this article. The FCC is the controlling agency for the size of a satellite? Not NASA or another agency of the government? Guess that is part of the process that AMSAT has to go thru to get a bird approved. Don't launch these tiny satellites, the FCC said. They're apparently in space anyway
| | | | | |
|
| | | | Don't launch these tiny satellites, the FCC said. They're apparentl... By Samantha Masunaga Menlo Park small-satellite firm Swarm Technologies apparently launched four tiny satellites despite the disappro... | |
|
|
73 Mike K4MIA
| | Virus-free. www.avast.com |
Sent via [email protected]. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via [email protected]. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
On 3/13/2018 3:51 PM, radiomb wrote:
Just saw this article. The FCC is the controlling agency for the size of a satellite? Not NASA or another agency of the government? Guess that is part of the process that AMSAT has to go thru to get a bird approved.
Oh and by the way, if you want to put a camera on board, you need a license from NOAA.
de KM1P Joe
Downlink is 137.920. If anyone is interested. -------- Original message --------From: Joe Fitzgerald [email protected] Date: 3/13/18 11:56 PM (GMT-05:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] FCC and Satellite Size
On 3/13/2018 3:51 PM, radiomb wrote:
Just saw this article. The FCC is the controlling agency for the size of a satellite? Not NASA or another agency of the government? Guess that is part of the process that AMSAT has to go thru to get a bird approved.
Oh and by the way, if you want to put a camera on board, you need a license from NOAA.
de KM1P Joe _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
participants (7)
-
Caleb Smith -
Howie DeFelice -
Joe Fitzgerald -
Joe N3XLS -
Paul Stoetzer -
radiomb -
Zach Leffke