5 ms·

I believe this will definitely be true. I'm sure that Swarm will have a very difficult time obtaining their next license for whatever they launch. It is already

I believe this will definitely be true. I'm sure that Swarm will have a very difficult time obtaining their next license for whatever they launch. It is already very difficult for a commercial company to get an FCC license. Especially when you are a small company with limited resources like Swarm. I worked for a different smallsat company, including working on the FCC application and it was a nightmare dealing with them. We submitted our initial application for a license, got comments back from the FCC and then we provided them with more data in response to their questions. Then after 2 years of the FCC just sitting on our license application we got a 3 sentence letter saying out application had been denied with no explanation of why.

wbl 8y ago
Meanwhile a bunch of people put up satellites as a hobby, and having been doing it since the 4th satellite ever.
- dr_orpheus 8y ago
  The hobbyist satellites still have to get licenses to communicate like everyone else. They are usually "dropped off" in low orbits, which are below the ISS and will decay in a few months so there isn't a concern with orbital debris.
  - wbl 8y ago
    Yes they get the license like everyone else. That undermines your complaint about how onerous it is. And OSCAR has lifetimes of more then a few months.
    - dr_orpheus 8y ago
      Sorry, I thought you were commenting based on the assumption that the amateur satellites didn't have to get licenses. More specifically my point is the difficulty for a commercial company to obtain a license for a desirable orbit from the FCC. For some background, to get an FCC ,or equivalent agency in another country, license you have to prove two things. One, that your satellite communications will not interfere with any others. Two, that your satellite will not be an orbital debris concern. The second part involves either proving that you will deorbit your satellite within 25 years after launch or that it will be placed in to a “disposal” orbit where it will not interfere with other satellites. For example, at the end of life geostationary satellites are boosted up in to a higher orbit above the geosynchronous belt. There are quite a few OSCAR satellites in higher orbits that have longer lifetimes. But most of them are still low enough that they will meet the de-orbit requirements of 25 years without any propulsion or other de-orbit device [1]. De-orbit times depend on ballistic coefficient of the satellite, drag profile, and current atmospheric density. But generally speaking, satellites in orbits lower than 600 km will de-oribt within the 25 year requirement [2]. The 25 year disposal requirement is also only an issue if you are in a desirable or full orbital plane. The OSCAR satellites that have much longer lifetimes are above 1000 km altitude and will effectively stay up there forever. They are out of the way of most of the commercial and civil earth observation satellites which are in the 600 km to 750 km range. This is the range where the issue of orbital debris gets more difficult. And yes it is good that the FCC should require technical rationale as to why the de-orbit strategy is sufficient. However, in my experience this has been a terrible process with the FCC specifically. I have also worked with satellite operators in England getting approvals from the ITU and it is a much smoother process. [1] https://www.n2yo.com/satellites/?c=18&srt=3&dir=0 https://www.n2yo.com/satellites/?c=18&srt=3&dir=0 [2] https://aiaa.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/3172/ISO_27852_(E)4.pdf' https://aiaa.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/3172/IS...
greglindahl 8y ago
Swarm already got their next license.
- dr_orpheus 8y ago
  Fair enough, I did just see that in the article. Maybe more FCC oversight actually helps since my problem with FCC seemed to be that the application just sat on a shelf for two years with no one looking at it.
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    That situation (long review times and lack of feedback) has already had considerable attention from government higher-ups and Congress.

wbl 8y ago

Meanwhile a bunch of people put up satellites as a hobby, and having been doing it since the 4th satellite ever.

dr_orpheus 8y ago
The hobbyist satellites still have to get licenses to communicate like everyone else. They are usually "dropped off" in low orbits, which are below the ISS and will decay in a few months so there isn't a concern with orbital debris.
- wbl 8y ago
  Yes they get the license like everyone else. That undermines your complaint about how onerous it is. And OSCAR has lifetimes of more then a few months.
  - dr_orpheus 8y ago
    Sorry, I thought you were commenting based on the assumption that the amateur satellites didn't have to get licenses. More specifically my point is the difficulty for a commercial company to obtain a license for a desirable orbit from the FCC. For some background, to get an FCC ,or equivalent agency in another country, license you have to prove two things. One, that your satellite communications will not interfere with any others. Two, that your satellite will not be an orbital debris concern. The second part involves either proving that you will deorbit your satellite within 25 years after launch or that it will be placed in to a “disposal” orbit where it will not interfere with other satellites. For example, at the end of life geostationary satellites are boosted up in to a higher orbit above the geosynchronous belt. There are quite a few OSCAR satellites in higher orbits that have longer lifetimes. But most of them are still low enough that they will meet the de-orbit requirements of 25 years without any propulsion or other de-orbit device [1]. De-orbit times depend on ballistic coefficient of the satellite, drag profile, and current atmospheric density. But generally speaking, satellites in orbits lower than 600 km will de-oribt within the 25 year requirement [2]. The 25 year disposal requirement is also only an issue if you are in a desirable or full orbital plane. The OSCAR satellites that have much longer lifetimes are above 1000 km altitude and will effectively stay up there forever. They are out of the way of most of the commercial and civil earth observation satellites which are in the 600 km to 750 km range. This is the range where the issue of orbital debris gets more difficult. And yes it is good that the FCC should require technical rationale as to why the de-orbit strategy is sufficient. However, in my experience this has been a terrible process with the FCC specifically. I have also worked with satellite operators in England getting approvals from the ITU and it is a much smoother process. [1] https://www.n2yo.com/satellites/?c=18&srt=3&dir=0 https://www.n2yo.com/satellites/?c=18&srt=3&dir=0 [2] https://aiaa.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/3172/ISO_27852_(E)4.pdf' https://aiaa.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/3172/IS...

greglindahl 8y ago

Swarm already got their next license.

dr_orpheus 8y ago
Fair enough, I did just see that in the article. Maybe more FCC oversight actually helps since my problem with FCC seemed to be that the application just sat on a shelf for two years with no one looking at it.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  That situation (long review times and lack of feedback) has already had considerable attention from government higher-ups and Congress.