4 ms·

I didn't see novalis78 mention air traffic regulation, just regulation. According to the regulations of the time, early air pioneers were perceived to be tresp

I didn't see novalis78 mention air traffic regulation, just regulation. According to the regulations of the time, early air pioneers were perceived to be trespassing. See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum,_eius_est_usque_ad_coelum_et_ad_inferos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum,_eius_est_usqu... Nowadays it may seem obvious that aircraft are not trespassing when they are flying over us, but it was not obvious at the time. A future regulatory regime for satellites could also conceivably see it as obvious that satellite design shouldn't be limited by the ability for them to be tracked by a common tracking system, but rather have a goal to avoid collisions through other means.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> A future regulatory regime for satellites could also conceivably see it as obvious that satellite design shouldn't be limited by the ability for them to be tracked by a common tracking system, but rather have a goal to avoid collisions through other means This would require quantum leaps in our propulsion and energy storage capabilities. A plane changing course and a satellite changing plane take vastly different energies. Small satellites which can manage plane changes are many, many breakthroughs away.
- FiatLuxDave 9y ago
  I did not mean maneuvering, I meant other means of keeping track of where satellites are. A tracking system doesn't actually move the satellites either. In theory this could involve transponder requirements or orbital constraints. All I'm saying is that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and when regulations say "you must skin a cat in this way", that can lead to technical stagnation.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > when regulations say "you must skin a cat in this way", that can lead to technical stagnation The regulations are broad. They basically say "there must be a way to track your satellite." Transponder-based tracking doesn't work for small satellites because of the power demands. Passive approaches are preferred. I've seen small satellite designers adapt the shape and materials of their birds, to maximize reflectivity. Swarm didn't do any of this.
    - FiatLuxDave 9y ago
      Ah, thank you. That was not apparent from the article, which only listed the physical dimension.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> A future regulatory regime for satellites could also conceivably see it as obvious that satellite design shouldn't be limited by the ability for them to be tracked by a common tracking system, but rather have a goal to avoid collisions through other means This would require quantum leaps in our propulsion and energy storage capabilities. A plane changing course and a satellite changing plane take vastly different energies. Small satellites which can manage plane changes are many, many breakthroughs away.

FiatLuxDave 9y ago
I did not mean maneuvering, I meant other means of keeping track of where satellites are. A tracking system doesn't actually move the satellites either. In theory this could involve transponder requirements or orbital constraints. All I'm saying is that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and when regulations say "you must skin a cat in this way", that can lead to technical stagnation.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > when regulations say "you must skin a cat in this way", that can lead to technical stagnation The regulations are broad. They basically say "there must be a way to track your satellite." Transponder-based tracking doesn't work for small satellites because of the power demands. Passive approaches are preferred. I've seen small satellite designers adapt the shape and materials of their birds, to maximize reflectivity. Swarm didn't do any of this.
  - FiatLuxDave 9y ago
    Ah, thank you. That was not apparent from the article, which only listed the physical dimension.