SWF-Space Show Webinar, Friday, 12-18-15 December 17, 2015Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: 1 to 40 Gigahertz range, antennas, atmospheric absorption, atmospheric interference, Beau Backus, C-band, David Hartshorn, Dept. of Defense, enforcement., government regulation, high altitude communications platforms, higher satellite operational frequencies, Intentional RFI, International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT), ITU, KA band, lower frequency characteristics, Radio Frequency Interference (RFI), receivers, satellite communications equipment, satellite operators, satellite user groups, Secure World Foundation, Space Data Associations, Space Frequency Coordination Group, spectrum, Terahertz bands, training, transmitters, UAVs, unintentional RFI, United Nations, Victoria Samson, wireless industry, World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC)
SWF-Space Show Webinar, Friday, 12-18-15
http://vimeo.com/channels/thespaceshow- Video of webinar
Featured Guests: VICTORIA SAMSON,The Secure World Foundation; BEAU BACKUS, Senior Project Manager for Spectrum @ The Aerospace Corporation; DAVID Hartshorn, Secretary General of GVF
Guests (Webinar): Victoria Samson, Beau Backus, David Hartshorn. Topics: Radio Frequency Interference (RFI), satellite operators, users, wireless, & much more. This program was recorded as a webinar which you can view at https://vimeo.com/channels/thespaceshow. You can also listen to it as an audio only program as you would any archived Space Show program. Please note that there were some audio issues as all guests were using cell phones. Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, https://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See http://www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm. For those listening to archives using live365.com and rating the programs, please email me as to why you assign a specific rating to the show. This will help me bring better programming to the audience.
We welcomed Victoria Samson, Beau Backus and David Hartshorn to this Secure World Foundation-Space Show webinar to address radio frequency interference issues facing the satellite user and operators, plus much more. In addition, both Beau and David have reference material relevant to our webinar and the issues we discussed uploaded on The Space Show blog for this program date. Make sure you see these uploads and make use of the information in the documents: (https://thespaceshow.wordpress.com/2015/12/17/swf-space-show-webinar-friday-12-18-15). In the first 60 minute segment, each of our guests provided us with a short introductory statement regarding radio frequency (RF) issues plus their background & experience in the RF industry and policy fields. This was followed by Ms. Samson offering us a comprehensive assessment of RFI issues as of the close of 2015 given the increasing democratization of access to space. Do not miss her analysis as to why the RF spectrum is a critical component of space activities. Our guests talked about the traditional players in this industry, then they explained how the “player” filed has been expanding as space access expands. We also talked about intentional and unintentional interference with our guests providing us with a good working definition for each interference category. Several examples of intentional and unintentional interference were given. One of the biggest intentional (jamming) interference events was rooted in the Arab Spring movement. This came up several times during our webinar. We also learned that the overwhelming percentage of interference events were unintentional by at least 90% of all interference events. We talked about what causes an unintentional event, the need for better equipment and training, plus both the U.S. and international regulatory environment for spectrum regulation, enforcement and consequence for violations. Examples were provided including the recent Bolivia World Cup television event. As for intentional interference, we talked about & defined jamming. We talked about possible solutions though nation’s pursue their interests and as was evidenced in the Arab Spring movement, it was in the interest of some countries to jam radio signals from reaching desired groups of people and markets. Our guests talked about the difficulty in jamming enforcement given all nations do it through their military institutions and warfare when in their interest. Near the end of the first segment, our guests introduced us to the World Radiocommunication Conference 2015 (WRC) which was recently held in Geneva (see www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/conferences/wrc/2015/Pages/default.aspx) and the issues brought about by the wireless industry accessing C-band frequencies from 3.4-4.2 GHz as there can be wireless interference with satellite communications. Our guests explained the wireless and satellite industry positions in this issue. For the balance of the first segment, our guests talked about wireless industry issues, the challenges brought about by these issues, plus frequency allocations as a way to possibly mitigate some of the challenges and to protect important satellite band communications from potential wireless interference.
In the second segment, our guests explained more about C-band and why its in demand and its advantages. We talked about end user groups and their needs along with those of the satellite operators. The issues surrounding trade offs for different uses of spectrum were discussed in a way that clearly identified issues needing resolution. In this part of our webinar, we talked about how spectrum issues had changed and evolved over time, especially with the wireless industry’s better use of C-band. Our guests were asked about the physical imitations of various parts of spectrum. In response to these questions, our guests talked about atmospheric issues, weather, and more, plus what part of spectrum was most impacted by a specific type of event or condition. Victoria brought up the issue of UAVs (drones) and our guests received a question about cubesat communications and FCC regulations. We also discussed high altitude communications platforms which contain several communication advantages such systems. . Don’t miss the discussion on all of these issues. Our guests received a question about additional bands in the spectrum and in response, they told us how more and more of the higher bands were starting to be used by industry players. Toward the end of our program, we focused on solutions. Our three guests told us how the industry & the regulatory bodies were responding to the challenges, especially with a focus on better training given that operator errors have been proven to be a major source of unintentional interference. Focusing on better equipment was also mentioned, both on the transmission and receiving end as equipment problems cause another large part of the unintentional interference issues. They also discussed developments and changes in the wireless industry to resolve significant interference issues when wireless uses some of the same satellite bands or frequency bands very near the satellite bands. All three of our guests offered meaningful closing comments you will definitely want to hear.
Please post all comments/questions on TSS blog above. You can reach any of our guests through their websites or through me.
The slide presentation is here: Backus-Additional Information
From Mr. Hartshorn: A YouTube documentary on jamming: https://youtu.be/St9kKCtpGYA
Dr. Space, Host The Space Show
Alan Steinberg, Friday, 2-1-13 February 2, 2013Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: "Space policy responsiveness: The relationship between public opinion and NASA funding, "Weapons in Space: The Need to Protect Space Assets, ABM, Alan Steinberg, ASAT, ASTROPOLITICS, beamed energy, cyber warfare, Dept. of Defense space, enforcement., international space law, NASA, PPWT, public opinion, self-defense, space advocacy, space debris, space weapons, U.N. Charter, U.N. treaties
Alan Steinberg, Friday, 2-1-13
Guest: Alan Steinberg. Topics; Protecting our space assets, weapons in space, space policy and public opinion. Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, https://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. We welcomed Alan Steinberg to the program to discuss both is latest Astropolitics article, “Weapons in Space: The Need to Protect Space Assets,” and his 2011 Space Policy article, , “Space policy responsiveness: The relationship between public opinion and NASA funding.” Both of these articles are available for purchase by using Google the full title of the article. During the first half of the program, we focused on Alan’s Astropolitics article. As you will hear, the issue of protecting our space assets is not an easy one to address or solve. Furthermore, as Alan and listeners suggested, the response the U.S. might make to an attack on space assets is unclear, especially if the attacking party or nation had an excuse, said it was an accident, or denied intentionally doing the deed. Alan and listener Michael defined the term space weapon and Michael provided us with the PPWT proposed treaty language defining space weapons. Alan had much to say about protecting space assets and weapons in space in the context of the U.N. treaties. We talked about U.S. as well as international enforcement here and in other countries. Space debris was discussed, especially in light of the difficulty in diplomatic action leading to tangible action against a debris causing country or party. Also discussed was government being responsible for commercial space assets under its flag.
In the second segment, we mostly talked about Alan’s 2011 Space Policy article, “Space policy responsiveness: The relationship between public opinion and NASA funding,” although many listeners via email and the phone kept returning to the space weapons topic. Alan took lots of questions about the role and impact on policy of space advocacy and as you will hear, its not easy or clear to pin down. Alan had much to say on how best to influence members of congress but was clear in pointing out that space advocacy does not have the numbers of the larger and more powerful lobbying groups that are far more effective in influencing policy than is the space community. Another of his points focused in on the significant influence of the aerospace industry as compared to space advocates and enthusiasts. We also learned from his concluding paragraph that when researching this issue, “research on what influences space policy attitudes and even space policy public opinion is in short supply.” In addition, we learned that while Americans like our space program and NASA, they don’t have a good understanding of it, the actual amount of funding NASA gets in relationship to the budget, and that their liking of the space program simply does not translate to more funding and more programs.
Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog. If you want to contact Alan Steinberg, you can do so through email@example.com.