[Ground-station] FCC Small-Satellite NPRM
zleffke at vt.edu
Fri Jun 15 19:40:51 EDT 2018
So if MO-76 has decayed........we're up to at least 5 'small' things
they can track.......
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 7:36 PM, Ron Economos via Ground-Station wrote:
> Just saw this on Twitter.
> Ron W6RZ
> 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
> Ground-Station mailing list
> Ground-Station at lists.openresearch.institute
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ground-Station