Author Topic: Boeing Smallsat Constellation  (Read 14694 times)

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9597
  • Liked: 354
  • Likes Given: 460
Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« on: 06/24/2016 04:55 PM »
The LA Times reports today that Boeing plans to operate a 2,000 satellite constellation in competition with OneWeb and SpaceX. The satellites will operate in V Band.

I am beginning to think that the smallsat industry is jumping the shark.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27790
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7670
  • Likes Given: 5113
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #1 on: 06/24/2016 05:02 PM »
How is it jumping the shark?

LEO constellations are an intrinsically superior idea. Challenging to make the economics work, but if you CAN make it work, it'll eventually make many GSO birds obsolete.

It's in Boeing's best interests as a major GSO satellite maker to pursue this option. They can't count on SpaceX and OneWeb (and others) all failing.
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 jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6120
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2161
  • Likes Given: 753
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #2 on: 06/24/2016 08:31 PM »
How is it jumping the shark?

LEO constellations are an intrinsically superior idea. Challenging to make the economics work, but if you CAN make it work, it'll eventually make many GSO birds obsolete.

It's in Boeing's best interests as a major GSO satellite maker to pursue this option. They can't count on SpaceX and OneWeb (and others) all failing.

It'll be interesting to see how this all shakes out. By my count, between the announced potential big LEO constellations (OneWeb, Boeing, SpaceX, and Samsung), you have up to ~13,500 proposed new spacecraft. Odds are several will be canceled before flight (if not all of them), but if they all flew, that would be an order of magnitude more operational spacecraft on orbit than there currently are.

It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out. Was this a FUD play from Boeing (to scare off OneWeb and SpaceX investors)? Or a serious play. Can they all work out their frequency use needs? What does this mean for the space debris situation? Will this close the case for Astroscale and other companies trying to get into the space debris cleanup market? Will Brexit and other geopolitical headwinds pull the rug out from under these ambitions just like the Tech Bubble popping killed the 90s megaconstellations? How will most of these launch? Will it be a situation where the demand outstrips supply? Etc, etc.

Glad to see another company jumping into the market though. It definitely increases the odds of at least one or two successes.

~Jon

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5120
  • Viewed launches since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1805
  • Likes Given: 1250
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #3 on: 06/24/2016 09:33 PM »
Boeing applies for license to launch proposed satellite constellation

thread source:  http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-boeing-satellites-20160623-snap-story.html
Tony De La Rosa

Offline Davidthefat

Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #4 on: 06/24/2016 09:36 PM »
Boeing already has satellites, and a much longer legacy in the business than OneWeb or SpaceX. It's not like they are a startup trying to get into the business. I don't see that as jumping the shark at all. I see it as getting with the times.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #5 on: 06/24/2016 09:55 PM »
Blue/Boeing XS1 LV would be ideal for maintaining the constellation, they would need something larger for bulk deployment eg Vulcan with ACES or Blue's RLV.


Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk


Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6120
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2161
  • Likes Given: 753
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #6 on: 06/24/2016 10:35 PM »
Blue/Boeing XS1 LV would be ideal for maintaining the constellation, they would need something larger for bulk deployment eg Vulcan with ACES or Blue's RLV.

Yeah, my guess is they'll use bigger, EELV class vehicles to launch (if they launch), with smaller vehicles for replenishment. I don't think that Boeing's XS-1 collaboration with Blue necessarily means they see that as an exclusive relationship that can never change. I could see them wanting to not launch on SpaceX, since SpaceX is directly competing with them in this market, but they'll probably shop around and find the best launch deal they can.

~Jon

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #7 on: 06/25/2016 12:53 AM »
I suspect Boeing will be partnering with somebody on this constellation.  They can build, launch and maintain it but still a means to market and sell capacity, this is where a partner like one existing satellite operators (eg SES) or telecommunications companies would be useful.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk


Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4630
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1747
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #8 on: 06/25/2016 01:45 AM »
SES is already teamed with O3b, which they  offered to buy outright last month for $710m.
DM

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5857
  • Liked: 3671
  • Likes Given: 5115
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #9 on: 06/25/2016 06:55 PM »
Hundreds of launches per year doesn't seem so far-fetched now, does it?

USG is probably scrambling to go small with its assets, too.
Space debris clean-up better get a kick in the butt to get going... will be vitally needed in 5-10 years as the feedstock for a Kessler syndrome is delivered to orbit, so we shouldn't wait until a crisis hits (like we are prone to do).
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6120
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2161
  • Likes Given: 753
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #10 on: 06/25/2016 09:46 PM »
Space debris clean-up better get a kick in the butt to get going... will be vitally needed in 5-10 years as the feedstock for a Kessler syndrome is delivered to orbit, so we shouldn't wait until a crisis hits (like we are prone to do).

I saw a paper at a recent conference that showed what happens to the debris levels with even a single OneWeb-like constellation, assuming varying levels of success at achieving 25yrs end of life disposal. If they only manage the traditional ~55% success rate, the debris quantity grows out of control. You have to get into the 90-95% success rate for things to stabilize at all. And that's with only 900 new spacecraft. If you really had 13,500 new spacecraft (900 OneWeb, ~3000 Boeing, ~4000 SpaceX, and ~4600 Samsung), that would be 10x as many operational spacecraft as currently exist (~1200), and a 60% increase in space objects bigger than a basketball in LEO.

These groups are taking debris seriously, but they haven't completely disclosed what their end-of-life disposal plans are going to be. I would assume that ADR is going to have to be part of the solution, but would want to hear more from them first. As it is, AstroScale of Singapore is a player in this area. I might know some other groups who might be interested as well if this market can be validated...

But that's starting to drift from the topic of Boeing's specific constellation.

~Jon

Offline Sam Ho

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 537
  • Liked: 209
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #11 on: 06/26/2016 05:20 AM »
Boeing's FCC filing is here:
http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/forwardtopublictabaction.do?file_number=SATLOA2016062200058

Initial Deployment is 1396 satellites at 1200km, mostly at 45 degrees inclination with some at 55.  Final Deployment is a total of 2956 satellites adding more satellites at 55 degrees, and polar-orbit satellites at 88 degrees, 1000 km.  (p23)

They are planning cell sizes of 8-11 km on the ground. (p7)

On the orbital debris front, they are reserving 90% of their propellant to lower each satellite to an orbit below 500km and 5-year lifetime at end of mission. (p35)

There's no mention of any advanced debris mitigation, just the low disposal orbit and passive reentry.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32061
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10700
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #12 on: 06/26/2016 04:02 PM »
Hundreds of launches per year doesn't seem so far-fetched now, does it?

USG is probably scrambling to go small with its assets, too.
Space debris clean-up better get a kick in the butt to get going... will be vitally needed in 5-10 years as the feedstock for a Kessler syndrome is delivered to orbit, so we shouldn't wait until a crisis hits (like we are prone to do).

Yes it does, it is still pie in the sky.  Same story in the 1990's.
And anyways, it would be large numbers of spacecraft on single launches and not many launches of a few spacecraft.
and no, the USG is not moving much less scrambling to small (see recent launch)

Again, another knee jerk conclusion.  No data to support such claims
« Last Edit: 06/26/2016 04:03 PM by Jim »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5857
  • Liked: 3671
  • Likes Given: 5115
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #13 on: 06/26/2016 09:42 PM »
Recent launch was designed when? 10 years ago? 20 years ago?

Maybe the ten tonne direct to GSO will still have a place in the future, but smaller sats will play a big role in the future.  See OP.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline demofsky

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 169
  • Liked: 99
  • Likes Given: 1700
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #14 on: 06/27/2016 04:26 AM »
I have to admit I am very surprised by the use of V-band due to atmospheric attenuation.  Yes you can route around isolated storms but what the heck do you do in a place like Seattle which is socked in for months?!!  Have to wonder how serious this is. 

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27790
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7670
  • Likes Given: 5113
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #15 on: 06/27/2016 04:49 AM »
I have to admit I am very surprised by the use of V-band due to atmospheric attenuation.  Yes you can route around isolated storms but what the heck do you do in a place like Seattle which is socked in for months?!!  Have to wonder how serious this is.
Might not be a problem if used in conjunction with high-altitude drones that hang out indefinitely in the stratosphere.
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 jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6120
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2161
  • Likes Given: 753
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #16 on: 06/27/2016 04:55 AM »
Boeing's FCC filing is here:
http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/forwardtopublictabaction.do?file_number=SATLOA2016062200058

Initial Deployment is 1396 satellites at 1200km, mostly at 45 degrees inclination with some at 55.  Final Deployment is a total of 2956 satellites adding more satellites at 55 degrees, and polar-orbit satellites at 88 degrees, 1000 km.  (p23)

On the orbital debris front, they are reserving 90% of their propellant to lower each satellite to an orbit below 500km and 5-year lifetime at end of mission. (p35)

There's no mention of any advanced debris mitigation, just the low disposal orbit and passive reentry.

That's the thing. If you have 3000 spacecraft, you're going to have some of them fail in a way that prevents them from making their end of life disposal burn. Historically spacecraft have failed to make end of life disposal plans about 45% of the time. Some of that was due to deliberately dipping into propellant reserves, but what fraction was due to on-orbit failures etc. If you have 3000 spacecraft, you're probably going to want active debris removal as the suspenders/duct-tape to go with your "reserve deorbit prop" belt.

~Jon

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27790
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7670
  • Likes Given: 5113
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #17 on: 06/27/2016 04:59 AM »
SpaceX, at least, intends to retire the satellites (planned obsolescence in 4 years) much earlier than current satellites which are basically run until they stop working or very near to that point (10-30 years?). That alone should dramatically improve odds of successful disposal.
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 baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7437
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1442
  • Likes Given: 4499
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #18 on: 06/27/2016 12:22 PM »
Really long watchdog (say 2 months) and independent deorbit system? Or launch with each batch a dedicated SEP deorbiter?

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #19 on: 06/27/2016 03:28 PM »
Long endurance US eg ACES, could be used to deorbit any dead satellites. Use a cubesat to find and latch onto dead satellite, and maybe preposition it for easy pickup by US. The US would pick it up next time it delivered satellites to that orbit.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12505
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3375
  • Likes Given: 678
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #20 on: 06/27/2016 04:02 PM »
Terrestrial alternatives beat out the Little-LEO cell phone constellations proposed during the 1990s.  Why shouldn't terrestrial alternatives also beat Little-LEO at this broadband internet service game?

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27790
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7670
  • Likes Given: 5113
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #21 on: 06/27/2016 04:34 PM »
Terrestrial alternatives beat out the Little-LEO cell phone constellations proposed during the 1990s.  Why shouldn't terrestrial alternatives also beat Little-LEO at this broadband internet service game?

 - Ed Kyle
Because physics. To penetrate buildings with a small antenna, as required for cell service, you need lower frequencies that aren't feasible (for one reason or another) for a LEO constellation. Whereas for broadband, you can place a large antenna on the roof and use higher frequencies that are FAR more practical for space telecomms.

Additionally, there's already a big broadband internet service game, yet many areas where broadband service is sparse and intrinsically expensive. So instead of LEO constellations being disrupted by cheaper and better terrestrial service, the LEO constellations already know what they're up against.
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 A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8296
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 124
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #22 on: 06/27/2016 05:11 PM »
Long endurance US eg ACES, could be used to deorbit any dead satellites. Use a cubesat to find and latch onto dead satellite, and maybe preposition it for easy pickup by US. The US would pick it up next time it delivered satellites to that orbit.

To latch onto a dead satellite I suspect that the cubesat needs a propulsion system. A more powerful engine and bigger fuel tanks would allow the cubesat to do the deorbiting itself.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6120
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2161
  • Likes Given: 753
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #23 on: 06/27/2016 09:30 PM »
SpaceX, at least, intends to retire the satellites (planned obsolescence in 4 years) much earlier than current satellites which are basically run until they stop working or very near to that point (10-30 years?). That alone should dramatically improve odds of successful disposal.

Actually, I think that was for LEO constellations over the past 10-15 years, with spacecraft that were designed for short lifetimes. But with 4000 spacecraft they're probably going to need something >95% end of life disposal reliability to not create a problem for themselves.

~Jon

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6120
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2161
  • Likes Given: 753
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #24 on: 06/27/2016 09:31 PM »
Really long watchdog (say 2 months) and independent deorbit system? Or launch with each batch a dedicated SEP deorbiter?

The watchdog deorbit system ends up being very heavy for a 1200km deorbit (>25% of the spacecraft mass for most solutions I've seen). That's why some form of active debris removal system (your second suggestion) is going to probably be necessary.

~Jon

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #25 on: 06/27/2016 10:45 PM »
Long endurance US eg ACES, could be used to deorbit any dead satellites. Use a cubesat to find and latch onto dead satellite, and maybe preposition it for easy pickup by US. The US would pick it up next time it delivered satellites to that orbit.

To latch onto a dead satellite I suspect that the cubesat needs a propulsion system. A more powerful engine and bigger fuel tanks would allow the cubesat to do the deorbiting itself.
The US needs to deorbit and a few 100 extra kgs shouldn't be a issue for likes of ACES.

After attaching dead satellite to US, tug is free to retrieve another satellite.
NB cubesat maybe a bit small for tug, probably requires a more capable satellite bus.


Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3322
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1726
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #26 on: 07/02/2016 05:41 AM »
The one thing being overlooked is the number of 11km diameter cells per sat being talked about and the power required to be able to support that number of cells. When I was evaluating the transmitter power per cell I came away with a power requirement for the sat to be at several kw to as high as 12kw. Basically a 2-3mt 702 all electric sat. So there is a big question as to whether it is possible to manufacture a 702 like sat for as little as $4M each in order to be able to have the power and other systems to support the creation of thousands of cells per sat. A BTW the  transmitter power per cell is only 0.1w using an antenna with a gain of 56db. But even at such an unbelievable low power thousands of cells on a sat still ends up in the kw range. The diagrams shown in the article implied that the number of cells on a sat was from 16 to 65 thousand cells.

The Boeing small cell supporting LEO sat constellation is not based on using lots of small sats but lots of medium sized all electric GEO like sats.

Offline ScepticMatt

  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 82
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #27 on: 07/07/2016 08:51 AM »
I'm interested in the planned use of the V-band for downlinks. In the past I speculated that SpaceX might use the V band as well, but they have since published other ITU filings.

Advantages of V-band:
* A lot of free frequency bands (as opposed to 10-32 GHz which is essentially full, as you can see here):
* Very high bandwidth potential
* More directional, better spectrum reuse and antenna gain (see here)
 
Downsides:
* Higher free space losses, 20 db going from 10 GHz to 100 GHz
* Higher atmospheric absorption (anything around 60 Ghz is impossible, and is thus used for next-gen WiFi)
* Rain fade and possible weather down-times (or need for higher powered satellites):




Conclusion:
If they use the V-band for downlinks they are going to use the lower parts of the spectrum with possibly the upper end of the Ka band, or atmospheric absorption and rain fade could be prohibitive.
Nothing prevents the use of 60 Ghz for in-space communication; in fact the high atmospheric losses are perfect to protect against ground-based intercept. This has already been demonstrated by MilStar in 1995.
 
More info from my old reddit post: here
and this ITU resolution
« Last Edit: 07/07/2016 09:23 AM by ScepticMatt »

Offline demofsky

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 169
  • Liked: 99
  • Likes Given: 1700
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #28 on: 07/08/2016 04:20 AM »
http://http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40592.msg1554243#msg1554243  has an attachment from their FTC application that discusses this.  They plan on using 37.5-42.5 GHz  (space-to-Earth), and  the  47.2-50.2 and 50.4-52.4  GHz  (Earth-to-space) bands.  Their solution is to crank up the power levels to 28.2  dBW/MHz  for  all  coverage  areas  except  Alaska and 31.1  dBW/MHz  for  Alaska which is higher than what the FTC normally allows but is within ITU limits.


Whether this would be enough to burn through heavy cloud cover, much let alone say a wall is a very interesting question.  Maybe they are planning to use very sensitive receivers and do magic frequency encoding
« Last Edit: 07/08/2016 04:20 AM by demofsky »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27790
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7670
  • Likes Given: 5113
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #29 on: 07/08/2016 01:14 PM »
It may be enough if they can gracefully drop to much lower bitrates.
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 demofsky

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 169
  • Liked: 99
  • Likes Given: 1700
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #30 on: 07/09/2016 05:51 AM »
Further on this is the following Space News article regarding a potential conflict between the new 5G cellular networks and licenced satellite systems at the 28 GHz and 37.5 - 40 GHz bands:


http://spacenews.com/satellite-broadband-braces-to-meet-the-fcc-hornet-in-hornets-nest/
« Last Edit: 07/10/2016 02:11 PM by demofsky »

Offline dror

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • Israel
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 358
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #31 on: 07/09/2016 10:04 AM »
Boeing's FCC filing is here:
http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/forwardtopublictabaction.do?file_number=SATLOA2016062200058
...
On the orbital debris front, they are reserving 90% of their propellant to lower each satellite to an orbit below 500km and 5-year lifetime at end of mission.
...

What will it take, in terms of dV or fuel reserves, to raise\lower the orbit just a bit, change the plane and dock with a collector vehicle?

The huge numbers means that a lot of resources can be reused instead of burned in reentry.
"If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal. "
Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot

Offline demofsky

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 169
  • Liked: 99
  • Likes Given: 1700
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #32 on: 07/23/2016 07:25 AM »
Boeing constellation mentioned in this article on spectrum conflicts:

http://spacenews.com/satellite-sector-mulls-how-to-live-with-fccs-5g-decision/

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22439
  • Liked: 748
  • Likes Given: 275
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #33 on: 10/14/2017 04:08 PM »
So a rumor, but Apple might be funding this constellation:

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2017/04/21/boing-apple-satellite-service/

Quote
Today’s report from Bloomberg on Apple’s latest high-profile hirings includes a passage that sheds light on Boeing’s alleged talks with Apple regarding a broadband satellite service. According to Boeing’s regulatory filing, the aerospace giant is planning to blanket the Earth with more than a thousand satellites providing fast Internet coverage throughout the United States and internationally. According to authors Mark Gurman and Mark Bergen, Boeing has talked with Apple about investing in or partnering on the project.
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2990
  • US
  • Liked: 2363
  • Likes Given: 1468
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #34 on: 12/08/2017 08:59 PM »
Found this after seeing a tweet by PBdeS.

SAT-AMD-20171206-00167

Quote
File Nos. SAT-LOA-20160622-00058 & SAT-AMD-20170301-00030

The Boeing Company (“Boeing”) and SOM1101, LLC (“SOM1101”) (collectively, the “Applicants”), by their respective attorneys, seek authorization from the Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) to amend Boeing’s Application to substitute SOM1101 as the party requesting authority to launch and operate a nongeostationary satellite orbit (“NGSO”) fixed-satellite service (“FSS”) system operating in the 37.5-42.5 GHz (space-to-Earth), and the 47.2-50.2 and 50.4-52.4 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands (collectively, the “V-band”).
...
Led by Greg Wyler, whose contributions to the satellite industry include the innovative O3b Networks and OneWeb NGSO constellations, SOM1101 is uniquely qualified to hold the requested authorization and bring the proposed services to market quickly and efficiently
...
This Amendment seeks to transfer the obligation to launch and operate the constellation to SOM1101
...

Quote
1010 Holdings LLC owns 100% of the membership interests of SOM1101 LLC
Gregory T. Wyler owns 100% of the membership interests in 1010 Holdings LLC
« Last Edit: 12/08/2017 09:00 PM by gongora »

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2990
  • US
  • Liked: 2363
  • Likes Given: 1468
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #35 on: 12/08/2017 11:32 PM »
The filing in the previous post is for the 2.956 satellite constellation that Boeing filed, which shows a similar set of orbital inclinations and deployment schedule as the SpaceX constellation, which Wyler has been disparaging.

Boeing also has another V-band constellation filing (SAT-LOA-20170301-00028) for a smaller number of LEO satellites along with some inclined GEO satellites.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5857
  • Liked: 3671
  • Likes Given: 5115
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #36 on: 12/09/2017 01:05 AM »
The filing in the previous post is for the 2.956 satellite constellation that Boeing filed, which shows a similar set of orbital inclinations and deployment schedule as the SpaceX constellation, which Wyler has been disparaging.

Boeing also has another V-band constellation filing (SAT-LOA-20170301-00028) for a smaller number of LEO satellites along with some inclined GEO satellites.

So, does this mean Boeing just bailed on competing head-to-head with SpaceX?
Interesting timing if they did...

Statement Mr. Muilenburg?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2990
  • US
  • Liked: 2363
  • Likes Given: 1468
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #37 on: 12/09/2017 01:36 AM »
The filing in the previous post is for the 2.956 satellite constellation that Boeing filed, which shows a similar set of orbital inclinations and deployment schedule as the SpaceX constellation, which Wyler has been disparaging.

Boeing also has another V-band constellation filing (SAT-LOA-20170301-00028) for a smaller number of LEO satellites along with some inclined GEO satellites.

So, does this mean Boeing just bailed on competing head-to-head with SpaceX?
Interesting timing if they did...

Statement Mr. Muilenburg?

I doubt Boeing ever intended to do this constellation on their own.  They were going to end up partnering with someone else eventually.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7041
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1010
  • Likes Given: 6632
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #38 on: 12/09/2017 07:16 AM »
Found this after seeing a tweet by PBdeS.

SAT-AMD-20171206-00167

Quote
File Nos. SAT-LOA-20160622-00058 & SAT-AMD-20170301-00030

The Boeing Company (“Boeing”) and SOM1101, LLC (“SOM1101”) (collectively, the “Applicants”), by their respective attorneys, seek authorization from the Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) to amend Boeing’s Application to substitute SOM1101 as the party requesting authority to launch and operate a nongeostationary satellite orbit (“NGSO”) fixed-satellite service (“FSS”) system operating in the 37.5-42.5 GHz (space-to-Earth), and the 47.2-50.2 and 50.4-52.4 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands (collectively, the “V-band”).
...
Led by Greg Wyler, whose contributions to the satellite industry include the innovative O3b Networks and OneWeb NGSO constellations, SOM1101 is uniquely qualified to hold the requested authorization and bring the proposed services to market quickly and efficiently
...
This Amendment seeks to transfer the obligation to launch and operate the constellation to SOM1101
...

Quote
1010 Holdings LLC owns 100% of the membership interests of SOM1101 LLC
Gregory T. Wyler owns 100% of the membership interests in 1010 Holdings LLC
It looks like Boeing is handing over all it's licensed bandwidth to Greg Wyler.

It really does look like it's going to be the whole Iridium/Orbcomm/Globalstar all over again.  :(

I wonder if any of them can avoid Chpt 11 this time.
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C Apply So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5857
  • Liked: 3671
  • Likes Given: 5115
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #39 on: 12/09/2017 11:58 AM »
Found this after seeing a tweet by PBdeS.

SAT-AMD-20171206-00167

Quote
File Nos. SAT-LOA-20160622-00058 & SAT-AMD-20170301-00030

The Boeing Company (“Boeing”) and SOM1101, LLC (“SOM1101”) (collectively, the “Applicants”), by their respective attorneys, seek authorization from the Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) to amend Boeing’s Application to substitute SOM1101 as the party requesting authority to launch and operate a nongeostationary satellite orbit (“NGSO”) fixed-satellite service (“FSS”) system operating in the 37.5-42.5 GHz (space-to-Earth), and the 47.2-50.2 and 50.4-52.4 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands (collectively, the “V-band”).
...
Led by Greg Wyler, whose contributions to the satellite industry include the innovative O3b Networks and OneWeb NGSO constellations, SOM1101 is uniquely qualified to hold the requested authorization and bring the proposed services to market quickly and efficiently
...
This Amendment seeks to transfer the obligation to launch and operate the constellation to SOM1101
...

Quote
1010 Holdings LLC owns 100% of the membership interests of SOM1101 LLC
Gregory T. Wyler owns 100% of the membership interests in 1010 Holdings LLC

Is there precedent for this type of transaction getting approved?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3322
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1726
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #40 on: 12/09/2017 09:33 PM »
This sounds a lot like the agreement that OneWeb has with Airbus Defense and Space to build and launch the sats while OneWeb then operates them.

Boeing would be the builder/launch agent but not the operator.

In both cases as long as the constellation is making money the builders would see a constant income form building sats.

At some point the two would be operated by a single entity even though there are two sat manufactures for the two different sats.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2990
  • US
  • Liked: 2363
  • Likes Given: 1468
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #41 on: 01/02/2018 02:38 AM »
I hadn't noticed that Boeing filed amendments to transfer two of their proposed constellations to Greg Wyler.  One was shown above, and here is the other:

SAT-AMD-20171206-00168 (for original filing SAT-LOA-20161115-00109, a 60 satellite Ka band constellation)

SpaceX and O3B/SES have filed papers registering themselves as interested parties in these proceedings.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5857
  • Liked: 3671
  • Likes Given: 5115
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #42 on: 01/03/2018 01:53 PM »
I hadn't noticed that Boeing filed amendments to transfer two of their proposed constellations to Greg Wyler.  One was shown above, and here is the other:

SAT-AMD-20171206-00168 (for original filing SAT-LOA-20161115-00109, a 60 satellite Ka band constellation)

SpaceX and O3B/SES have filed papers registering themselves as interested parties in these proceedings.

Would it make sense to have multiple different satellite vendors/configurations in an integrated constellation?  Is this the intent, or is the licensing of the spectrum only on the table, and OneWeb would be able to fill it with whatever sats it chose (or would Boeing still be the satellite designer/builder and possibly launcher)?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2990
  • US
  • Liked: 2363
  • Likes Given: 1468
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #43 on: 01/03/2018 02:01 PM »
I hadn't noticed that Boeing filed amendments to transfer two of their proposed constellations to Greg Wyler.  One was shown above, and here is the other:

SAT-AMD-20171206-00168 (for original filing SAT-LOA-20161115-00109, a 60 satellite Ka band constellation)

SpaceX and O3B/SES have filed papers registering themselves as interested parties in these proceedings.

Would it make sense to have multiple different satellite vendors/configurations in an integrated constellation?  Is this the intent, or is the licensing of the spectrum only on the table, and OneWeb would be able to fill it with whatever sats it chose (or would Boeing still be the satellite designer/builder and possibly launcher)?

Another document filed by Boeing/Wyler went to great lengths pointing out this transfer is not to OneWeb.  Personally I'd guess that Wyler would eventually transfer the ownership to OneWeb when they got to a point in the process where the rules would permit it.  It doesn't seem even remotely reasonable that Wyler would use these outside of OneWeb.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2990
  • US
  • Liked: 2363
  • Likes Given: 1468
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #44 on: 02/23/2018 04:42 PM »
Eric Berger wrote an article about these strange proposed transfers.

[Ars Technica] There’s something strange going on amid the satellite Internet rush

Tags: