[Ground-station] Question for ORI:

[Jay Francis]

I'll +1 Zach's question, and as a hardware person I've tried to go down 
a similar path.

Leffke, Zachary via Ground-Station wrote on 4/1/21 4:46 PM:
>
> I’ve wanted to do my own custom layouts with integrated RTL-SDRs for 
> various projects (like multi-sdr coherent projects, custom single 
> chain receivers with my own RF front ends, hats for things like RPis, 
> etc.) and have run into multiple barriers, some related to (I think) 
> proprietary ICs, lack of documentation, and lack of the ability to 
> purchase the chips in small quantities.  Not an expert on any of 
> this…point is, you can’t buy the chips on digikey/mouser for whatever 
> reason and documentation of them is hard to come by (some stuff was 
> leaked….but that doesn’t seem legit either).  Seems like if you want 
> to build RTL-SDR flavored hardware, you have to go direct to the 
> manufacturer, sign NDAs, and order in bulk.
>
> *So my question is, given that RTL-SDRs are so prolific (same for 
> funcube dongles, though maybe to a lesser extent), does it REALLY 
> matter if the ICs are proprietary? Isn’t what actually matters is that 
> the drivers needed to use them are open source?*
>
I suspect the response will be that the underlying modulation method for 
LoRa is patented, therefor not open source (even though it is clearly 
"open" as far as how it is done, there are even GNU LoRa radio 
receivers, etc.)  How does the landscape for LoRa change as more chip 
vendors license the patent from Semtech (i.e. Microchip has products)?

There does seem to be some crossing of the thought streams between a 
patented technology (LoRa PHY) and the use of a closed/proprietary 
technology (i.e. encryption, maybe LoRa WAN?).  I haven't looked into 
how LoRaWAN nodes implement security, and there may definitely be some 
non-ham radio friendly things going on there.  We probably want to be 
clear about whether we're talking LoRa (PHY) or LoRaWAN.

I didn't mean to stir the pot by mentioning TinyGS - sorry Pierros.
> I plan to make a comprehensive write-up on our (LSF) views for LoRa in
> Space and the possible way forward (and share it here too)
That would be excellent!  If the underlying technology of the LoRa PHY 
is not suitable for space use (not just because it is patented!), it 
would be good to understand why.

I wonder if part of the ultimate problem is what Pierros alluded to:
> They are learning for RF through googling "Arduino+LoRa pinout"
> (/sarcasm-off.. I am alluring to the vast amounts of "learning" and
> "how-to-get-started" materials you can find about LoRa and LoRaWAN)
Maybe this is more of a marketing and user perception problem?

It's so easy to find information on LoRa with examples, and then stumble 
on TinyGS with a super slick installer/configurator on a single piece of 
inexpensive hardware.  I was up and running with TinyGS in about 30 minutes.

When I've considered SATNOGs, it really felt like the simple ground 
station (without rotator) wasn't super useful and coming up with a 
dedicated rotator setup was more than I wanted to do (for now).

More marketing related would be the pointers to the open satellite 
transmitters - it doesn't help if satellite developers don't know they 
exist (which was Pierros' point).

I guess my contribution to the discussion is:  If you're going to rally 
against what seems to be the path of least resistance for some folks, 
you need to provide an alternative that is just as attractive, and make 
sure everyone knows about it.

--Jay, KA1PQK

(off to figure out what pieces I already have to build up a SATNOGs 
non-rotator ground station...)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openresearch.institute/pipermail/ground-station-openresearch.institute/attachments/20210401/f36160e9/attachment.html>