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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
Boeing's FCC filing is here:http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/forwardtopublictabaction.do?file_number=SATLOA2016062200058Initial 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.
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
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.
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.
Really long watchdog (say 2 months) and independent deorbit system? Or launch with each batch a dedicated SEP deorbiter?
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 06/27/2016 03:28 pmLong 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.
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....
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.
File Nos. SAT-LOA-20160622-00058 & SAT-AMD-20170301-00030The 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...
1010 Holdings LLC owns 100% of the membership interests of SOM1101 LLCGregory T. Wyler owns 100% of the membership interests in 1010 Holdings LLC
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.
Quote from: gongora on 12/08/2017 11:32 pmThe 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?
Found this after seeing a tweet by PBdeS.SAT-AMD-20171206-00167QuoteFile Nos. SAT-LOA-20160622-00058 & SAT-AMD-20170301-00030The 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...Quote1010 Holdings LLC owns 100% of the membership interests of SOM1101 LLCGregory T. Wyler owns 100% of the membership interests in 1010 Holdings LLC
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.
Quote from: gongora on 01/02/2018 02:38 amI 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)?
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF AMENDMENTSThe Boeing Company and SOM1101, LLC (the “Parties”), by their undersigned counsel,hereby withdraw the: (1) Amendment of the Boeing Company, File No. SAT-AMD-20171206-00167 to File No. SAT-LOA-20160622-00058, Call Sign S2966; and (2) Amendment of theBoeing Company, File No. SAT-ADM-20171206-00168 to File No. SAT-LOA-20161115-00109, Call Sign S2977 (together, the “Amendments”) in the above caption and all pleadings andcorrespondence filed in support thereof. The Parties no longer wish to pursue the Amendments.
Are these the amendments that proposed transferring some of the rights to Greg Wyler?
July 31, 2018Jose Albuquerque, ChiefInternational Bureau, Satellite DivisionFederal Communications Commission445 12th Street SWWashington, DC 20554Re: The Boeing CompanyIBFS File Nos. SAT-LOA-20161115-00109 (call sign S2977);SAT-LOA-20160622-00058 and SAT-AMD-20170301-00030 (call sign S2966);SAT-LOA-20170301-00028, SAT-AMD-20170929-00137 andSAT-AMD-20180131-00013 (call sign S2993)Dear Mr. Albuquerque:The Boeing Company, through its attorneys, hereby withdraws two of its applications forauthority to launch and operate non-geostationary satellite orbit (“NGSO”) fixed satellite service(“FSS”) systems operating in the Ka-band, IBFS File Number SAT-LOA-20161115-00109 (callsign S2977), and in the V-band, IBFS File Numbers SAT-LOA-20160622-00058 and SAT-AMD20170301-00030(call sign S2966).Boeing continues to seek authority for its third NGSO FSS system, IBFS File NumbersSAT-LOA-20170301-00028, SAT-AMD-20170929-00137 and SAT-AMD-20180131-00013(call sign S2993). Boeing expects to file an amendment to make certain changes to its remainingsystem. Even as amended, the S2993 constellation would continue to include substantially fewersatellites than Boeing’s withdrawn V-band NGSO FSS system and therefore would overall reducethe number of frequency conflicts resulting from Boeing’s V-band presence in relation to other VbandNGSO FSS systems.Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions about this matter.Sincerely,Bruce A. OlcottCounsel to The Boeing Company
Boeing spokesman Jerry Drelling told Seattle Business magazine that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission has placed the Boeing application for authority to launch and operate 147 satellites into the “public notice” phase, adding that “this is a key step toward the eventual grant of Boeing licenses for this system.”
The last new about the Boeing constellation...
At Boeing's request, @FccSpace has withdrawn Boeing license for LEO satellite constellation (awarded less than 2 yrs ago) . "For now, we are not immediately pursuing a V-band constellation," VP Michelle Parker tells @aviaitonweek. "We are confident V-band will someday be commercialized as global demand for satellite broadband connectivity continues to increase. " License forfeiture cost Boeing $2.2 million.