Author Topic: Boeing Smallsat Constellation  (Read 16008 times)

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12675
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3568
  • Likes Given: 719
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

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28124
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7925
  • Likes Given: 5278
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: 8396
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 135
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: 6143
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2203
  • Likes Given: 761
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: 6143
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2203
  • Likes Given: 761
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: 3385
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1787
  • Likes Given: 215
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: 170
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 1737
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 »

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28124
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7925
  • Likes Given: 5278
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: 170
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 1737
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 »

Online dror

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 577
  • Israel
  • Liked: 138
  • Likes Given: 366
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: 170
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 1737
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: 22455
  • Liked: 767
  • Likes Given: 287
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

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3380
  • US
  • Liked: 2736
  • Likes Given: 1648
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 »

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3380
  • US
  • Liked: 2736
  • Likes Given: 1648
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.

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6178
  • Liked: 3970
  • Likes Given: 5466
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

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3380
  • US
  • Liked: 2736
  • Likes Given: 1648
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: 7410
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1090
  • Likes Given: 7345
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. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6178
  • Liked: 3970
  • Likes Given: 5466
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

Tags: