Author Topic: Starlink : SpaceX FCC filing for a 4425 satellite constellation  (Read 192329 times)

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Since this is a commercial communications service application, until they get the approval from the FCC they will not have the specific requirements to which the sats must be designed. They have a good set now but there are still some variables in the FCC requirements which will not be in final form until they receive approval. Once they have the approval then the sat design moves past the preliminary design phase and into the prototyping and test phase. Once past the prototyping and design phase is the critical design and production phase. Once sats are produced in enough quantity then launching and deployment would begin.

So now we wait for the formal approval from the FCC. From this info it does not seem that there are any remaining roadblocks to the approval. But there can always be bumps since they have not been approved just yet.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
The V-Band application from March was accepted for filing.

Quote
SAT-LOA-20170301-00027 E S2992
Launch and Operating Authority
Date Filed: 03/01/2017 17:22:30:48300
Space Exploration Holdings, LLC

Space Exploration Holdings, LLC requests authority to deploy and operate a non-geostationary orbit fixed satellite system to augment an NGSO system SpaceX previously proposed for operation in Ku-band and Ka-band frequencies (IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20161115-00018). SpaceX seeks authority to add V-band spectrum to the 4,425 NGSO satellites previously proposed to allow the use of both Ku- and V-band spectrum for user links, and both Ka- and V-band spectrum for gateway links and tracking, telemetry, and command functions. Space X also proposes to add a very-low-Earth orbit NGSO constellation, consisting of 7,518 satellites operating at altitudes from 335 km to 346 km, using V-band spectrum for all links to and from associated earth stations. The V-band frequencies proposed are: 37.5-42.0 GHz (space-to-Earth), and 47.2-50.2 GHz and 50.4-52.4 GHz (Earth-to-space). We defer consideration of SpaceX's application for authority to operate in the 42.0-42.5 GHz band, which is not allocated for non-Federal fixed-satellite service in the United States and do not accept for filing this portion of SpaceX's application at this time. SpaceX requests waiver of sections 2.106, 25.202(a)(1), 25.143(b)(2)(ii), 25.156(d)(4), 25.156(d)(5), 25.157(e), 25.164(b), 25.208(r), and 25.114(c)(8) of the Commission's rules, and, to the extent necessary, various limitations in the Commission's Schedule S, in connection with this application.

This application is part of the processing round established in Satellite Branch Information: Boeing Application Accepted for Filing; IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20160622-00058; Cut-Off Established for Additional NGSO-Like Satellite Applications or Petitions for Operations in the
37.5-40.0 GHz, 40.0-42.0 GHz, 47.2-50.2 GHz and 50.4-51.4 GHz Bands, Public Notice, DA 16-1244 (rel. Nov. 1, 2016).

The page for this filing is SpaceX V-Band FCC Filing
« Last Edit: 08/26/2017 06:02 pm by gongora »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
New article:

Quote
SES asks ITU to replace ‘one and done’ rule for satellite constellations with new system

Quote
International regulators are weighing whether to tighten rules that permit owners of large satellite constellations to launch a single spacecraft to meet their in-service deadline, a policy seen as allowing an operator to block the use valuable radio spectrum for years without deploying its fleet.

Satellite fleet operator SES, which is taking an active role in the regulatory debate, has proposed to regulators a compromise that recognizes the unique nature of large constellations while also enforcing much stricter requirements.


Quote
The FCC is asking constellations in non-geostationary orbit to field their entire fleets within six years of receiving their FCC licenses. SpaceX and Boeing have asked the FCC to adopt a more-flexible requirement, saying that the realities of the satellite production and launch industry make it all but impossible to launch huge numbers of satellites within six years.

SpaceX has said it could launch 1,600 satellites, each expected to weigh 386 kilograms, in the six-year period — more than sufficient to prove its seriousness, the company told the FCC. Boeing has also asked for a waiver of the six-year deadline:

http://bit.ly/2urUZrs

https://www.spaceintelreport.com/ses-asks-itu-replace-one-done-rule-satellite-constellations-new-system/
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
..realities of the satellite production and launch industry make it all but impossible to launch huge numbers of satellites within six years.

Left out a small but important part at the end:

Quote
Greg Wyler, chairman of OneWeb, a constellation of at least 800 satellites in low Earth orbit, has said he would have no objection to a much stricter deadline regime at the ITU. OneWeb has scheduled the launch of 10 demonstration satellites in mid-2018, with the rest of the network to be in orbit by 2020, mainly through 21 launches of Russian Soyuz rockets, contracted through Arianespace.
OneWeb has also contracted launched with Virgin Galactic’s LauncherOne and Blue Origin’s New Glenn vehicles.

Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Home
  • Liked: 921
  • Likes Given: 205
I've found this blogpost which claims that the first two SpaceX test satellites are going up in late 2017 on the PAZ mission from VAFB. This seems to be based on sharing a sun-synchronous orbit at 514 km altitude with an inclination of 97.44 degrees.

I'm not entirely sure I believe this. I don't know all that much about orbital mechanics but wikipedia claims sun-synchronous orbits form families with shared parameters? So it's possible that the first sats will go on one of the later SSO launches.
« Last Edit: 09/08/2017 08:27 pm by DreamyPickle »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
None of SpaceX's constellation is going to sun-sync, so I find it odd that they would launch the test birds there. Possible, but very odd.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8840
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60430
  • Likes Given: 1305
None of SpaceX's constellation is going to sun-sync, so I find it odd that they would launch the test birds there. Possible, but very odd.
Keeps the crew on a regular schedule and they can use an early, much simpler software version for initial testing.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline vaporcobra

Haven't seen a post of the recent FCC response to comments and requests, posted and dated Sept 7. The blog post above was from Tim Farrar, a consultant in satcomms and wireless spectrum.

Link: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0907/DOC-346584A1.pdf

Thorough analysis: https://www.spaceintelreport.com/u-s-regulators-propose-relax-satellite-constellation-service-coverage-rules/

Super condensed conclusion: Did not do SpaceX many favors in rule revisions. https://twitter.com/TMFAssociates/status/905943209905233922
« Last Edit: 09/08/2017 11:11 pm by vaporcobra »

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Haven't seen a post of the recent FCC response to comments and requests, posted and dated Sept 7.

I posted it earlier today but the thread title didn't have SpaceX in it so most people won't read it  ;)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41647.msg1720966#msg1720966

Offline vaporcobra

Haven't seen a post of the recent FCC response to comments and requests, posted and dated Sept 7.

I posted it earlier today but the thread title didn't have SpaceX in it so most people won't read it  ;)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41647.msg1720966#msg1720966

Guilty as charged! Thanks for posting, didn't even know we had an FCC thread  :-X

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
I've found this blogpost which claims that the first two SpaceX test satellites are going up in late 2017 on the PAZ mission from VAFB. This seems to be based on sharing a sun-synchronous orbit at 514 km altitude with an inclination of 97.44 degrees.

I'm not entirely sure I believe this. I don't know all that much about orbital mechanics but wikipedia claims sun-synchronous orbits form families with shared parameters? So it's possible that the first sats will go on one of the later SSO launches.

I wouldn't be surprised to see SpaceX sat(s) on that launch.  One strange thing is that in May before the Senate, Patricia Cooper's written testimony had this:
Quote
Later this year, SpaceX will begin the process of testing the satellites themselves, launching one prototype before the end of the year and another during the early months of 2018. Following successful demonstration of the technology, SpaceX intends to begin the operational satellite launch campaign in 2019. The remaining satellites in the constellation will be launched in phases through 2024, when the system will reach full capacity with the Ka- and Ku-Band satellites. SpaceX intends to launch the system onboard our Falcon 9 rocket, leveraging significant launch cost savings afforded by the first stage reusability now demonstrated with the vehicle.

It's always seemed strange to me that she said they'll launch one test sat at a time.

I really don't get the focus on the international sharing rules in that blog post.  I don't see how the FCC would have any right to specify the sharing methods outside the U.S. for non-U.S. registered constellations, just because they had access to the U.S. market.  (Someone on Reddit also noticed that the picture from a SpaceX presentation that is presented as possibly being the SpaceX sats in that blog post are actually NASA satellites.)

didn't even know we had an FCC thread  :-X

I've been sticking stuff in there that is applicable to the entire NGSO processing round and not really SpaceX specific.  It also has handy links to all the other filings farther up in the thread.  I was going to quote it here but forgot.

Offline vaporcobra


I really don't get the focus on the international sharing rules in that blog post.  I don't see how the FCC would have any right to specify the sharing methods outside the U.S. for non-U.S. registered constellations, just because they had access to the U.S. market.  (Someone on Reddit also noticed that the picture from a SpaceX presentation that is presented as possibly being the SpaceX sats in that blog post are actually NASA satellites.)

didn't even know we had an FCC thread  :-X

I've been sticking stuff in there that is applicable to the entire NGSO processing round and not really SpaceX specific.  It also has handy links to all the other filings farther up in the thread.  I was going to quote it here but forgot.

I'm writing an article on the Sept 7 update and I'm not entirely sure I understand it either. I'm starting from the assumption that Tim is indeed a good judge of this, as he is a consultant in the field of satcomms and wireless spectrum and I have no background in any of the FCC's regulatory work outside of net neutrality.

What he essentially calls the showstopper for SpaceX is the FCC's decision to cede to the ITU all interference concerns between non-U.S. licensed and U.S. licensed operators. The FCC is more lenient and requires non GEO commsats to split the spectrum evenly among themselves in the event that they are within 10 degrees of each other relative to a single ground station. The ITU basically just cedes the decision to the first entity to launch satellites and doesn't really want to be involved in the regulation. It's been called a "first come, first serve" approach as Tim touches on.

Regardless, I don't necessarily see how this matters unless SpaceX cares from the start that their constellation be globally operational. As far as I understand international vs. national law, national law takes precedent in national disputes. So, OneWeb would seemingly still be required to abide by the FCC's spectrum sharing method if it wants to use its license in the U.S.

I think the main issue is that for SpaceX to even receive a license, it has to show that it is complying with the necessary anti-interference regulations, and that that means the ITU's rules so long as competitors like OneWeb and Telesat are licensed outside of the U.S. Anti-interference regulations under the ITU quite literally do not allow for interference if the first operator is not okay with interference. And of course a CommX competitor is going to exploit regulations to suppress competition.

There are still a lot of loose ends in my mind and I honestly feel like I understand it less and less the more I try to learn about it. Sigh. We need a radio/communications regulations expert in here...


Edit: Okay, after going through OneWeb's FCC market access grant from earlier this year (https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-345159A1.pdf, p. 7), there was a petition to deny from Telesat under the condition that OneWeb would have to internationally coordinate with Telesat's constellation, thus requiring some evidence that OneWeb would cooperate with and meet the regulations required by the ITU. OneWeb agreed, and included that language in the grant. From the FCC's in-text citation:
Quote
"Compliance with ITU coordination procedures is a requirement of the ITU Radio Regulations, which hold the force of treaty to which the United States is a party. Such compliance is a typical condition of both U.S. space station licenses and grants of U.S. market access."

Both of their constellations are extremely small compared to SpaceX's, and I highly doubt SpaceX would be able to simply avoid interference in all cases, as required by the ITU. If I understand it correctly, that would require satellites to be on a completely different plane or to have them disable communications during potential interference events. That would indeed by a showstopper for the global constellation SpaceX wants and is trying to license, and they have discussed in the past how inefficient and nearly equivalently expensive developing a LEO constellation solely for the U.S. would be compared to a global constellation.

Of course, take this with a heaping spoonful of salt. I am no expert and this is all probably 172% inaccurate ;D

« Last Edit: 09/09/2017 06:50 am by vaporcobra »

Offline Jcc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1196
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 203
I don't know if disabling a sat temporarily during an interference event would be a show stopper, that's the benefit of having 1000s of sats. Also, they can still function as in space relays, as that is done with optical communications.

Online Semmel

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2178
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2433
  • Likes Given: 11916
When the constellation is deployed (or even half deployed), any location with access to the constellation will have several if not dozens of sats in view. Provided the ground station is not in a narrow alley with little sky coverage. Interference with other constellations would occur if a location on the ground is in direct line of sight from one sat of one constellation and one sat of an other constellation. Since there are always many alternative satellites and given the narrowness of beams planned for SpaceX, it would be possible to avoid transmissions that intersect with other satellites. This of course requires a quite complex code, a well functioning connection path change and precise knowledge of where the satellites of the other constellation currently are. It is not trivial by any means but possible nonetheless. I hope that all constellations would have to implement such technology to avoid disturbing each other.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
What's the fuss about? Turning off the beam in a certain direction when SpaceX's satellite passes in front of another satellite's beam has always been at the core of SpaceX's plans. Misleading to call it "disabling," though.

And take "consultant" with a grain of salt. (Strongbad voice) "Isn't that what people put on their resume while they're unemployed?"
« Last Edit: 09/09/2017 01:28 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
What's the fuss about? Turning off the beam in a certain direction when SpaceX's satellite passes in front of another satellite's beam has always been at the core of SpaceX's plans. Misleading to call it "disabling," though.

And take "consultant" with a grain of salt. (Strongbad voice) "Isn't that what people put on their resume while they're unemployed?"

Constellation is planned to have dozens of sats in LOS at any time.  Loss of one temporarily should be inconsequential from a customer perspective; there is the operational issue of blocking the right sats at the right time.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1017
« Last Edit: 09/12/2017 03:55 am by Ludus »

Offline vaporcobra

Teslarati take on issues SpaceX has with the FCC decision.

http://www.teslarati.com/spacexs-plan-launch-internet-satellites-face-possible-setback-recent-fcc-decision/

It me! Comments and critiques welcome. I plan on doing another piece on the findings in my comment edit above, it's just hard making this stuff approachable for a more general audience.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Seems SpaceX are planning to launch their test satellites this year. Would this not put them ahead of the competition?

Offline vaporcobra

Seems SpaceX are planning to launch their test satellites this year. Would this not put them ahead of the competition?

That is highly speculative, even though the evidence we have is pretty solid. We'll see as the manifest solidifies, although I suppose SpaceX wouldn't necessarily even have to publicly acknowledge that it was its satellites as copassengers. FCC documents will be all the evidence we need, though!

In the sense that SpaceX is ahead of competitors, we really don't know much about that. If SpaceX does in fact launch it's first test satellites this year and they are relatively close to the finished product, they'll theoretically be ahead of OneWeb, their only near term competitors.

I expect at least some minor details about it in Adelaide. Crazy that the IAC is just over two weeks away  ;)

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1