Democratizing Space, One Picosatellite At A Time

There was a time when putting an object into low Earth orbit was the absolute pinnacle of human achievement. It was such an outrageously expensive and complex undertaking that only a world superpower was capable of it, and even then, success wasn’t guaranteed. As the unforgiving physics involved are a constant, and the number of entities that could build space-capable vehicles remained low, this situation remained largely the same for the remainder of the 20th century.

Nathaniel Evry

But over the last couple of decades, the needle has finally started to move. Of course spaceflight is still just as unforgiving today as it was when Sputnik first streaked through the sky in 1957, but the vast technical improvements that have been made since then means space is increasingly becoming a public resource.

Thanks to increased commercial competition, putting a payload into orbit now costs a fraction of what it did even ten years ago, while at the same time, the general miniaturization of electronic components has dramatically changed what can be accomplished in even a meager amount of mass. The end result are launches that don’t just carry one or two large satellites into orbit, but dozens of small ones simultaneously.

To find out more about this brave new world of space exploration, we invited Nathaniel Evry, Chief Research Officer at Quub, to host last week’s DIY Picosatellites Hack Chat.

Quub is one of a new breed of companies that have sprung up recently which plan on leveraging small, low-cost, satellites to offer services which were once the sole domain of megacorps and governments. Specifically, they’re working on a constellation of microsatellites that will allow independent monitoring of the Earth’s natural resources.

It’s perhaps no surprise that the chat started off with a pretty straightforward question: what actually qualifies as a micro or pico satellite? It turns out the ever-exacting NASA has a set of guidelines which broadly breaks down the overall SmallSat category (spacecraft under 180 kilograms) down into the following classes:

  • Minisatellite: 100 – 180 kg
  • Microsatellite: 10 – 100 kg
  • Nanosatellite: 1 – 10 kg
  • Picosatellite: 0.01 – 1 kg
  • Femtosatellite: 0.001 – 0.01 kg

Outside of mass, there’s naturally the size and shape of the craft to consider. Here Nathaniel points out that there are various standards for modular satellite frames, but generally speaking they describe cubic and rectangular layouts which can be efficiently packed and dispensed. A common theme among these sort of SmallSats is that they will unfold into larger and more complex arrangements after deployment, often by extending solar array “wings” and antennas. Speaking about Quub specifically, Nathaniel says their primary platform is officially referred to as a 6p PocketQube, which measures roughly 50 mm x 100 mm x 200 mm.

But it’s more than just the size and shape of these satellites that benefit from standardization. In an effort to bring costs down even further, they commonly use commercial off-the-shelf components rather than the bespoke rad-hardened hardware which in decades past would have been a given for anything heading to orbit. Even if the final hardware does end up being a bit higher-end, Nathaniel says all of the prototyping work Quub has done so far has used the sort of hardware that you’d find in the average hardware hacker’s toolbox — including the Raspberry Pi and RP2040 microcontroller.

As the conversation moved towards the internal construction of SmallSats, Nathaniel mentioned that one of their internal design goals is to avoid wires if at all possible as they can become a liability during launch due to vibrations and high G-force. Boards are designed to connect to each other directly whenever possible, and when the use of wiring is unavoidable, special high-strength connectors are necessary. Though in a pinch “a lot of epoxy” is also an option.

With so many details on how Quub’s satellites are being designed and built, it’s little surprise that some in the chat were curious about whether the company plans on releasing any of their work as open source. The answer turns out to be a qualified yes; while their current design still involves some elements they aren’t ready to share publicly, Quub is in the process of releasing earlier generations of their platform under the MIT license.

Quub’s open source SpaceHex dev platform

Of course, despite the use of off-the-shelf components and 3D printed frames, we’re not quite at the point where your average hackerspace is throwing together a picosatellite with what’s in the beer fund. For one thing, the sort of space-rated Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receivers you’d want onboard your craft to provide position and velocity data aren’t exactly the kind of thing you can pick up from Micro Center. Similarly, while the Applied Ion Systems thrusters Nathaniel says Quub are using appear to be remarkably DIY-friendly, they still have five-figure price tags.

Arguably you could still fly without the niceties of thrusters or on-board navigation. After all, Sputnik did it. But then there’s still the small issue of getting your homebrew bird into space. While SpaceX and other commercial entities have shaved a few zeros off of what it costs to put a kilogram into orbit, it’s still a pricey proposition for an individual. But we’re getting there, and that’s extremely exciting. We’re now at the point now where small startups and universities can pull it off, and with a bit of luck, citizen scientists and hackers shouldn’t be too far behind.

We’d like to thank Nathaniel Evry for taking the time to talk about the exciting work happening at Quub and in the SmallSat community as a whole. Hosting a serious discussion about the future of DIY spacecraft is the sort of thing that we could once only have dreamt of, so we’re thrilled to have had the opportunity to make it happen. We’ll be keeping a close eye on Quub’s open source efforts, and wish them the best of luck as they venture out into the black.

The Hack Chat is a weekly online chat session hosted by leading experts from all corners of the hardware hacking universe. It’s a great way for hackers connect in a fun and informal way, but if you can’t make it live, these overview posts as well as the transcripts posted to make sure you don’t miss out.

50 thoughts on “Democratizing Space, One Picosatellite At A Time

  1. Yes, I am one of ‘those’…

    This has nothing to do with the democratization of anything. It is the exploitation of space, and the pollution of space. It is yet another example of the human species making a mess where ever it goes.

    Capitalism is a great equalizer of opportunity. Unfettered and poorly regulated capitalism, which has enabled relatively cheap and easy access to LEO, is yet another decrement to the probability of long-term viability for our species.

    Hyperbole? Yep.
    Untrue? Nope.

    1. How about just use distributed protocol for self-governance and reuse stuff we already send?
      You know we could have cheap community Wi-Fi mesh network covering entire planet already.
      Lack of cheap rocket still is a big problem…

      1. So…. What exactly do you call the satellite phone network then? Or do you propose we would all have personal computers in our pockets? They wouldn’t have the power to reach space, sure they could listen, but the data rate after error correction and retransmission of unrecoverable packets would be atrocious on a device that wasnt attached to a dedicated dish antenna. That still leaves the problem of how do we send requests for data and retransmissions? Oh! I know! How about we distribute higher powered dedicated transceiver stations so that the devices can utilize lower powered, lower frequency optimized radios and self contained antennas to talk to these base stations. The base stations could cover a fairly large swath of area, a mile or two from the base stations mast or so. Then these base stations could relay the data streams to the satellites! Problem solved! Well, I mean, except for the latency issue. It takes like 200ms for a signal to go up and another 200ms back down…. Hrmm, maybe we could link stations together with fiber optics, so that local stations have a faster, shorter trip compaired to shooting a signal out to space…. would be more power efficient to run a few laser transducers for fibers than it would be to run transmitters that talk to satellites.

        Now that I think of it……..this is starting to sound awfully familiar isnt it? Instead of rebuilding a new communications network with worse performance and requiring more power to operate, these cell of interconnected networks using what we already have in place and already doing that task could continue being used…. BE CAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE A NEAR WORLD WIDE DATA COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK!!!! THEY’RE CALLED CELL PHONES!!!

        This is continuing to be an issue with the younger generations, and even the older ones who just parrot marketing bullet points, only concerned with quoting specs to make themselves sound right. Basically taking a militant stand against anything that might imply they’re wrong (more specifically the shame and offence at being shown to have little to no actual actionable knowledge, which they take personally as so much of their identity is sunk into someone else’s words not their own reasoning), instead of doing the proper thing of gaining an understanding of the systems at play and then attempting to prove themselves WRONG before even attempting to make authoritative statements of fact. They want the rock start tech mogul status but willfully avoid doing the leg work and mental exercises required to earn it. Taking the ill informed ramblings of some stranger on tv they are told is knowledgeable, completely ignoring the glaringly obvious body language that person is pulling stuff out of thin air, while forsaking those who have been enthusiastic in the casual learning of relevant systems yet have been consistently ignored.

        The technical ability to have a globe hopping rocket has been around since the 1950s. The issue that no one ever seems to consider is the ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY of such and similar systems. This also applies to cars, and the frankly terrifyingly inadequate control systems masqueraded as high tech (they’re not, the tech has only become cheap enough to deploy en mass. But that tech does not solve inherent issues which we have known about since the 1970s), in the interest of rushing a product to market and gaining that sweet sweet status. Then pointing fingers when it all goes wrong in a way that should have been a part of their failure mode tests, which they never researched, and fire the people trying to warn them about the dangers. Because saying, ‘no this wont be safe’ is creating a negative and hostile environment.

        On the heels of that idiotic sub that crumpled, you techbros need to calm the fuck down and get your sycophantic worship under control. Otherwise all we have to look forward to is more over promises of thinky veiled widely available tech and code which ultimately undermine the future we could have. All so the maker hipsters can have their Jobs/Musk/Holmes moment…. And we pay for the privilege…. Receiving only flimsy products that decide to stop functioning at the whim of the home office instead of the user who purchased it. I for one am not complacent in this milksop future of assuming everyone is an idiot that need to be protected from themselves. I in fact take offence to the very idea. I am offended for those who do not realize they are being taken advantage of, then made to feel special for the experience. And I wish more people would grow out of this blind zeitgeist rut, actually use those brains of theirs, and stop this charade and chicanery ultimately banking on the reinforced ignorance of the public as a whole…..

        Please…. People…. I beg you…. Stop this childish game. I promise I will be here to help you, without judgment, arms open ready to accept you as you are, all you need is the willingness to put in the effort of thought. The only stupid questions are the ones left unasked. Even a question comedic on its face deserves an honest answer. Anyone willing to rail against an honestly asked question is not worth taking advice from in the first place. Be careful how much you open your mind, as your brain can fall out. Then someone will come along and stick their garbage in the empty space. Be wary of those who tell you what to think, either directly or via threats and emotional signaling/manipulation. Instead ask questions and develop the methods of how to think for yourself, with confidence in your reasoning, yet remain open to new and deeper information that may change those reasonings. Its okay to change your mind. Its okay to be wrong. It is not okay to force views born of willful ignorance upon others. The blind trust placed upon entities, especially profit generating ones, to act in your best interest, and the previous mentioned abuses of that trust is perpetuating a malicious memetic narrative that threatens the prosperity of the species as a whole. By engaging in that blind trust you are allowing yourself to be complacent in these companies and peoples directly abusing you, on the basis of not respecting your intelligence or agency. Those who engage in such practices do not deserve your admiration much less respect.

        No one knows everything, but anyone can learn anything. You are not dumb. You are not ignorant. You are capable human being, and have the inalienable right to bring treated as such. Your ability to absorb new information is immutable. At the absolute worst you are inexperienced in a given task or subject, and cannot and should not ever be used to disparage you. You are smart, you are intelligent, and no one has any right to suggest otherwise. Especially base on something as trivial as having not encountered the same experiences.

        We can do this. But to hold back the slow creep of those who would take advantage, we MUST do it together. I will be here in the twilight of a new dawn waiting for you, for we must learn to walk in the light together. I promise you, on all that is, was, and will ever be, I will never purposefully act in hindrance of that journey. And I will readily forgive any unintentional hindrances outside of my control. I want to take this journey, and I want you all with me, each of you, with your own unique experiences, conceptualizations, and opinions. Together we will march upon the husks of those starved of the hollow praise what was once an act of fearful acceptance, and together we may see that gleaming future just around the corner but was never allowed to us before.

        We can do it. You can do it. I believe in us! 😎👍

        1. Back in the 80s, radio amateurs had world-wide e-mail communication over Packet-Radio.. The amateur satellites used “store and forward” to transfer them.

          In the 90s, we Europeans had started building a large, ground-based Packet-Radio network on CB Radio (FM, 1200 Baud AFSK, sometimes 2400 Baud, too. More was possible by using special modems using QAM). Likewise, we could send e-mails across the countries.

          Both networks were completely independent of the internet, the telephone system and any government infrastructure. They were being built by a community of individuals. And they were ad-free, without any traces of capitalism or economics. It was simply human.

        2. ‘anyone can learn anything’

          Not even close.

          Have you ever seen a liberal arts or business major struggle with grade school math? They’ve been taught that material at least four times by then. Adding fractions is just beyond their abilities.

          Your philosophy/wall of text ignores the stupid. You can’t just wish them away.

          I will never dance ballet or play the obo well. (Protip: If you ever get the chance of dating someone who plays a reeded wind instrument take it. Skills!) But my chances are better than any ‘promised no math’ person’s odds of passing calculus.

          1. And you believe people like you, who write people off as stupid, has nothing to do with the difficulties some have with learning maths? Most people that think they cant only do so as a result of the unaddressed traumas and self-imposed stigmas imagined from being berated for not learning the same way or as quickly as others do. And that deserves them being called stupid? Unfortunately such a stance betrays how little you understand of humanity, and the human condition.

            Have you ever even looked at the syllabus of a business degree?

            Ill answer that for you since you will only use that question as a fulcrum upon which to place your lever of edgelordyness….as if you’re the first one to ever come up with that response. Oh you sweet, sweet child.

            No, you haven’t ever looked into the required classes to pass a business major. Would you like to know how I could possibly know that? Because I have. I have had partners take those courses. They contain at least 2 semesters of accounting. You know, the maths that account for the cash flow within a business? Surely you at least know that… I have walked them through the concepts of debt vs credit columns, not accounts, columns. Why they exist and why they are called such. And I guarantee, you would get them backwards if I hadn’t given you this little hint your kneejerk assumption would be wrong. And they all passed with flying colors, especially since now they have the understanding to check their functions for erroneous equations when generating their financial report spreadsheets. But hey, they’re just lowly old business majors, cant even tell the difference between a deferment and a hole in the ground, eh?

            I never once stated, say you, could perform ballet well. But you assume that means you cannot learn about the subject of ballet? Because you cannot play a narrow reeded instrument you assume you cannot play clarinet? What about saxophone? Does it have to be a woodwind? Better yet, what does that have to do with learning to listen to the intricacies of music? Or learning to transcribe it? I cannot write a song, and yet I play guitar. By your own standards I should not exist. Er no, I should be called wishful and stupid for not confirming to your rigid view of the world.

            And in spite of that ever so welcoming and enabling view (said sarcastically), here I stand, spreading knowledge and understanding, helping others gain insight into aspects of our world previously shrouded by accusatory narrow minded “you cant be the best so you dont deserve to do the thing” entities, whom I imagine youd get along quite well with, and fears of rejection, ostracisation, or worse the confirmation of being stupid…..

            And where do you choose to stand? Ah yes, labelling others as ‘stupid’ awaiting your oboist blowies.

            Well, from personal experience; 1) you’re wrong. And 2) that’s stupid.

            But since the only correct point of view in this world that makes it all function for you is that pitiful excuse of a modus operandi you have shared with us, i dont see much future in intelligent open minded discussion with you. Now, quip back with your vitriol, get your last word in, prove to …. well only yourself really …. that you have this all figured out. Put the dumb dumbs in their place. Be a big boy for mommy, now. And be on your way. Kthnxbai😁👍

    2. Please take your lips off the government boot, they’re the ones who put big sattelites into high and eccentric orbits to exert their will over their citizens and other nations.

      The efforts in the above article are so low and so light that they simply don’t hang around long enough to be an issue. If you’re worried about collisions, grab a copy of KSP, throw a solid booster on a low orbiting low mass sattelite (to simulate energy transferred from a collision), set it randomly spinning and fire the booster. You’ll find that the majority of firings (representing the majority of collision debris) generate eccentric orbits that result in faster reentry. Just bear in mind that KSP abruptly cuts off atmospheric drag, so refer to reentry tables for a better idea of subsequent events.

      1. The problem might the domino effect, though. If so many small satellites in LEO collide (a mass collision within a big constellation), about enough kinetic energy could develop to throw a couple of the LEO pieces in a higher orbit or elliptical orbit. Also, due to their low mass, not much external force is needed to change their orbits (by comparison).

        1. A collision can only raise the apoapsis, it can’t generate a periapsis higher than the original collision height and, if they then collide with another object in a circular orbit at their new apoapsis, the net sum of the collision energy will be retrograde to the third object (since the velocity of the debris will always be slower than an object in circular).

          Also, the time that any debris (which will be a small fragment of an already small satellite) spends at a higher apoapsis will be a small part of the orbit (though the longest portion of the overall period) and it will rapidly drop as it makes repeated passes through a thicker atmosphere at periapsis. The small mass relative to drag sees to that. The small mass seems immaterial WRT changes in altitude, since any collision at orbital velocities will generate very small particles.

      1. We will also “never progress as a species” if we don’t learn to cooperate. In space, there’s just one humanity. There’s no space for selfishness.

        Back in the day of early wireless communication, each radio company was minding its own business only. Operators of one company were forbidden to talk with one of another.

        The Titanic accident changed people’s mind, made them aware that in an emergency there’s no room for capitalism and business. Back then, the then-new SOS signal was used first time in conjunction with CQD.

        Likewise, we humans must share resources in space in a respectful and reasonable manner. Space is a common heritage, sort of.

        That’s what the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 defined (which the US didn’t sign, of course). There’s no room for “wild wild west” mentality. Of course, some (undeveloped) countries just don’t care.

        1. ‘we humans must share resources in space in a respectful and reasonable manner.’

          Yes, exactly.
          Resources should be shared between two willing parties who freely negotiated their own deal.

          Anybody saying ‘we’re all in this together’ should be put out an airlock/dumped into a recycler. What he means is ‘my problems are now yours’. Never ‘your problems are now mine’.

          Same as on earth. Except no airlocks available here. Still lampposts, rope and gravity are substitutes.

          1. That shouldn’t matter. The nations are responsible for their own private companies. Of course, if these nations don’t do a good job of policing, then other nations can’t really do much.

        1. Hahaha self regulate. That’s the issue. Most countries, that can get there, have signed the no weapons in space. Hmm strange that the Russians recently tested a satellite kill weapon. The US already ran their test of a sat kill weapon. Self regulation is just a pretense to allow them to do what they want while saying they are the good guys. See Google and “don’t be evil”

          1. The treaty is about weapons permanently in space. ASAT weapons are not based in space just like ICBMs do not violate the treaty because they are not hanging out up there wating. If you want to pontificate please know what the treaties say.

          2. @Steven Naslund I agree that naming sat killers as weapons in that treaty is wrong but I have to say that AFAIK the US and Russia, and probably the rest, have sleeper sats to kill other sats. I mean it makes sense that it might not be convenient/wise/practical to launch lots of sat killers AFTER a massive conflict has started. So those are sort of permanently stationed. They don’t kill any living thing though.

            As for the real killer weapons.. I think I’ll just cynically assume the US at least has an amount of those in space, even when they won’t admit it.

            Oh and after the last few presidents it has sort of been established that the US don’t abide by treaties anymore, no matter if rattified by congress and the president. They abide on a whim and not as a hard rule.

    3. This is the usual panic that everyone has when they don’t understand the risks and the products involved. Pico/cube/micro satellites in low, low-earth orbits are near-zero risk – they’re tracked, they’re understood and they de-orbit rapidly (months, to low years). They’re specifically launched into safer orbits and monitored until de-orbit. To look at approximates, picos last weeks to months, nanos last months to years. Generally these are tech demos or educational devices, expected to be burnt up shortly. It’s still too expensive for joe bloggs on the street to send up rubbish due to launch costs. This means most of them are built under the supervision of one of the major authorities (ESA/NASA/JAXA) or one of the more experienced manufacturers. Don’t forget that launch providers still need approval from their authorities to show that they’re safe, they’re not causing problems and everything is above board.
      If one or two fail and don’t communicate, no major loss – it’ll be gone shortly and the tiny mass means it took almost no fuel to get it there, and it will inject almost no pollution when it re-enters.

      1. For what it’s worth, this sounds about right, when it comes to the risks.

        I work for Quub and can say that all our satellites begin to deorbit, or have completed their deorbit and burned up in the atmosphere, within 5 years.

        And they’re made entirely with materials that burn up on reentry.

      2. “This is the usual panic that everyone has when they don’t understand the risks and the products involved.”

        Well, there are also concerns about polluting upper atmosphere. Aluminium might be a problem, it burns up/evaporates during re-entry.

    4. However the cosmos cleans itself in reality, LEO sats always end up back on the ground at some point, and in most cases there’s not a trace of them when they do.

      The issue becomes when you start pushing payloads out past LEO into stable orbits that don’t significantly decay for a millennia, not as polluted as LEO but it’s nowhere near as easy to clean either.

      Space faring organisations have now begun to ensure they have enough EOL fuel on their units to push one last burst to either facilitate a burn up or escape or at the very least push their gear out of active orbit into a kind of “junk” orbit further out.

      Who knows maybe earth will one day have it’s own orbital archaeology.

  2. Sounding rocket who can deliver 1kg at least to Carmen line for ≤ $100 would be big step toward introduction to space of much wider audience.
    Sadly not many people interested in practical rocketry…
    SSTS was is attempt and they still trying but not much from anybody else…
    I have couple weird ideas but unfortunately not much opportunity.

    1. It is spelled “Von Karmen line” in honor of a gentleman who ran JPL for many years and advanced what we know of cheap rockets. Oh and there’s a huge community working in hobby grade rockets. And an even bigger one in big rockets that are practically the size of the original class of sounding rockets.

      1. My bad, auto-correction got me, but also it’s “von Kármán line”.;D
        Amateur rocketry unfortunately ether expensive or highly impractical but you can prove my wrong by post open hardware design which can go to von Kármán line and deliver 1kg of payload for $100 or cheaper.

    2. There’s next to no return for that though, apart from military uses. The de-orbit time for that altitude is days and you’re still not clear of many of the earth-bound effects that make higher orbits a useful location vs a high altitude balloon.

    3. The best way to achieve this is either going to be via linear accelerator or impulse launcher systems. The problem of course is the massive G loading that the gear has to withstand before it makes it to operational orbit

      Either method however could put the cost of a Kg down to a few hundred bucks.

  3. I dunno maybe this will be more like yay lets put more trash into orbit! and all those Youtubers making no sense videos about how they failed to put more trash in orbit just for the likes. . I dunno

  4. Seems pretty pointless when they’re put into such a low orbit they will burn up in a few weeks?

    It would be more interesting if there was a way to put amateur satellites into geosynchronous or Lagrange orbit.

    1. If they are put in such a low orbit, it’s because that’s where they wanted to be. There is nothing that prevents cubesats from going further and higher. They have been to the Moon and Mars already.

      The one’s being developed by this company have their own on board propulsion and can change their orbits.

    2. “They” generally target the orbit they want at the lowest possible altitude for the mission, because there are effects from going higher that you may not want to have to design for, and there are costs and problems associated with going higher such as having to justify to various agencies why your de-orbit time is >25 years.

  5. Shouldn’t there be a requirement that for a company to replace a satellite they must deorbit the old one and not send it to a parking orbit? There are a lot of satellites that are still in orbit after having been replaced with a newer better one. If there was some kind of enforcement to do a one for one swap or something like that things might be better and reduce the risk of a Kessler syndrome. Yeah I know… dream on…

    1. So you never want to have more than the current number of satellites?

      My understanding is that parking orbits are generally safe because they’re a long way out so the chances of collision are microscopic. However yes, it would make more sense to try to de-orbit old ones, that’s why there’s a bunch of work ongoing currently on
      1) Active de-orbit systems (retrieve and de-orbit, or just onboard de-orbit devices)
      2) Refueling on-orbit to extend the life of existing sats

      And of course there’s already requirements on at least European missions that LEO missions must de-orbit within 25 years (actively or passively) to get approval for launch.

      1. 1 & 2 are still early concepts but hopefully they will become the defacto standard soon. It would be a shame if in the future a launch window would have to include waiting for a “hole” through all the orbiting mega constellations and orbital junk to appear. We are heading toward a new “plastic bottle” problem in space.

        1. 2) Is interesting (extending lifetime). There are concepts to “grab” them by their thrusters by using rockets and push them up. Alternatively, solar sails and lasers could maybe be used to remotely “push” satellites in the right place. Because, most satellites (say, TV and telecommunications satellites) are still functioning fine, as far as their transceivers are concerned. It would be a shame if they were decommissioned too early. Ion drives powered by solar cells would be cool, too. If atmospheric gases could somehow be collected/used..

    2. Another big deal for comms satellites is delay. A geosync orbit at 23k miles introduces uncomfortable delay on real time voice conversations and it also requires much more power to talk up and down vs LEO sats. The only advantage to geosync is no tracking required.

  6. I’m not sure what all those cube sat are suppose to be doing.
    I can’t think of anything that half a dozen haven’t already done and I wonder what all the tens of other ones do.
    I mean the ones from ‘the public’.
    Are they just all repeats of the same concept?

Leave a Reply

Please be kind and respectful to help make the comments section excellent. (Comment Policy)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.