[Ground-station] FCC Small-Satellite NPRM
w6rz at comcast.net
Fri Jun 15 19:36:15 EDT 2018
Just saw this on Twitter.
On 06/15/2018 04:23 PM, Zach Leffke via Ground-Station wrote:
> 1 43142U 18004AH 18166.15327463 .00002710 00000-0 11662-3 0 9999
> 2 43142 97.5349 228.9583 0011111 108.5240 251.7204 15.23458854 23400
> 1 43141U 18004AG 18165.89385312 .00002518 00000-0 10875-3 0 9996
> 2 43141 97.5348 228.6883 0011116 109.0700 251.1741 15.23396885 23371
> 1 43140U 18004AF 18165.89660685 .00002409 00000-0 10436-3 0 9996
> 2 43140 97.5347 228.6832 0011129 108.9142 251.3301 15.23343657 23378
> 1 43139U 18004AE 18166.16700625 .00001921 00000-0 84210-4 0 9994
> 2 43139 97.5347 228.9332 0011117 107.4719 252.7733 15.23190279 23403
> TLE source: Celestrak.com, also on N2YO's webpage.
> Not trying to be argumentative here, truly am confused about whats
> going on.....hoping someone in the know can school me.
> To me it appears they are reliably tracking all four individually.
> Epochs updated yesterday/today (if I did the Julian conversion right),
> and I've been loosely following this and have never seen 'stale'
> updates. These TLEs (NORAD IDs) were in the catalog very early in the
> post launch deployment (within first two weeks for sure, I have a TLE
> matching project based off Doppler curves, done for Fox-1D that was on
> the same vehicle, and have the early TLEs saved off on github and the
> individual spacebees are in there!). This implies that they were
> quickly resolved in the sea of 30+ satellites deployed in 300 seconds
> (or there about).
> Not saying they should have been launched without their licensing in
> place, but clearly (to me, could be wrong here) the original grounds
> for the FCC denial was flat out wrong, like Howie said.
> So maybe their response would be "sure, we can track /four/....". OK,
> well......what's your upper limit? A denial of 'sorry we can only
> routinely track 20, and there are currently 20 up there, so you have
> to wait for the technology to improve or something to decay' would
> really suck, but at least it would be clear.........
> My take on this issue is that if there is a minimum size requirement
> (maybe orbital altitude is a factor as well here, so maybe 'desired
> altitude + size requirement') from FCC/JSpOC/NASA/Whoever, that is not
> clearly stated in any application requirements, so how were they (or
> anyone else for that matter) to know that would be an issue in the
> first place. We have an interest in the ThinSat design at VT. We are
> launching ThinSat derived designs on a suborbital sounding rocket very
> soon (not an issue for orbit tracking, but that program is supposed to
> be traceable to orbital spaceflight), I know that a High School in
> Southwest VA is launching some very soon (they got approval), though
> they will be VERY low altitude (one - two week lifetime) and we have
> recently started a possible collaboration with VMI who is intending to
> launch some in the next year or so (haven't begun filing
> process).........so what is the requirement?
> So what is the technical challenge here? I understand that higher
> frequency radars (Ka band I think?) are needed to track these smaller
> objects, and that there are fewer of those. But the TLEs keep getting
> updated......so is this a question of scheduling and because this is a
> hot topic they have bumped them up in the priority queue? Is some
> piece of Iridium 33 / COSMOS 2251 not being tracked to make room for
> these guys and they are worried about over burdening the radars?
> Again, understandable.......but they are not being clear and
> consistent in the requirement, which just causes more confusion......
> Again, not trying to defend the company who went against FCC
> decisions, but the fundamental grounds for the denial is at best
> incomplete, at worst, just straight up wrong......
> -Zach, KJ4QLP
> 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 6/15/2018 6:21 PM, Bruce Perens via Ground-Station wrote:
>> I will note that, but I suspect their answer is going to be "sure, we
>> can track /one"./
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Howie DeFelice
>> <howied231 at hotmail.com <mailto:howied231 at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>> The FCC statement about "Trackability" and that Jspoc cannot
>> routinely track objects smaller than 10cm is just not true.
>> $50sat (aka Eagle2) was launched in 2013 into a 700 km sun
>> synchronous orbit. The dimensions of that satellite were 5cm x
>> 5cm x 7.5 cm and updates from Jspoc were routinely published
>> until the satellite re-entered a few weeks ago. This is the
>> satellite referred to in note 25 of the NPRM, comment by Alba
>> * Howie AB2s
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ground-Station