The previous V-band only sats weren't going to get built and deployed. Ever.
Starlink Gen2 summary: FCC approves launch of layers 5, 6, and 7 in my SG2 table at https://planet4589.org/space/con/conlist.html, to a total of 2500 out of the requested 3360 sats in each of those layers. Approval of the remaining 22500 Gen2 sats is deferred
This corresponds to the magenta line in this simulation https://planet4589.org/astro/starsim/figs03/Fig6aG2.jpg but reduced by 0.75 to about 230 sats above horizon at midsummer twilight at 52N (e.g. UK) compared to the blue line corresponding to the full 30000 sats
SpaceX may have made an error in informing the FCC that it would soon be requesting that the already-authorized 7,500-satellite V-band constellation be folded into the Gen2 constellation. FCC just took that and said that they weren't going to authorize any more satellites and frequency bands.
Now, two-and-a-half years after filing the Gen2 application and over a year since filing its amended application, the Bureau is requesting yet more information beyond the scope of the Commission’s rules. SpaceX values transparency with the Commission, but is concerned that this additional information, which no other operator is required to provide, will be used as a basis for conditioning a grant of its application.
gg. SpaceX must coordinate with NSF to achieve a mutually acceptable agreement to mitigate the impact of its satellites on optical ground-based astronomy. SpaceX must submit an annual report to the Commission, by January 1st each year covering the proceeding year containing the following information: (1) whether it has reached a coordination agreement with NSF addressing optical astronomy; and (2) any steps SpaceX has taken to reduce the impact of its satellites on optical astronomy, including but not limited to darkening, deflecting light away from the Earth, attitude maneuvering, and provision oforbital information to astronomers for scheduling observations around satellites’ locations.
Quote from: gongora on 12/01/2022 11:50 pmgg. SpaceX must coordinate with NSF to achieve a mutually acceptable agreement to mitigate the impact of its satellites on optical ground-based astronomy. SpaceX must submit an annual report to the Commission, by January 1st each year covering the proceeding year containing the following information: (1) whether it has reached a coordination agreement with NSF addressing optical astronomy; and (2) any steps SpaceX has taken to reduce the impact of its satellites on optical astronomy, including but not limited to darkening, deflecting light away from the Earth, attitude maneuvering, and provision oforbital information to astronomers for scheduling observations around satellites’ locations.This is awesome. The NSF (national science foundation) - which runs big ground based observatories has a say in how much light mitigation spaceX must do. Rule making means this isn't just up to the largesse of a for profit company. This bodes well for precedent for all future constellations of other companies.
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 12/01/2022 10:11 pmSpaceX may have made an error in informing the FCC that it would soon be requesting that the already-authorized 7,500-satellite V-band constellation be folded into the Gen2 constellation. FCC just took that and said that they weren't going to authorize any more satellites and frequency bands.I'm not sure SpaceX had a choice, I get the impression that there're backroom discussions between FCC and SpaceX, and this is the compromise they reached which allows Gen2 to launch immediately. I think there's probably a good reason the filing wrt folding V-band into Gen2 is called "Gen2 Letter Final.pdf", seems they know this is what's needed to get a partial authorization.Still a small win for SpaceX since Gen2 satellite size is a lot bigger than Gen1/V-band satellite, and they get to use ~500km orbit instead of the super low ~300km orbit of the V-band.
Some excerpts from the 74 page document:...aa. In the event of satellite failures resulting in more than 100 post-failure object years, SpaceX may not deploy any additional satellites until the Commission has approved a license modification that includes an updated orbital debris mitigation plan addressing reduction in the failure rate or mitigation of the risk of satellite failures.
At first blush, this satellite failure requirement seems unnecessarily draconian by several orders of magnitude and would already be breached by Gen1, OneWeb, and Iridium. Generally, the FCC appears to be saying that satellites without operating thrusters are unacceptable in LEO and that it rejects the concept of self-cleaning orbits.Quote from: gongora on 12/01/2022 11:50 pmSome excerpts from the 74 page document:...aa. In the event of satellite failures resulting in more than 100 post-failure object years, SpaceX may not deploy any additional satellites until the Commission has approved a license modification that includes an updated orbital debris mitigation plan addressing reduction in the failure rate or mitigation of the risk of satellite failures.
At first blush, this satellite failure requirement seems unnecessarily draconian by several orders of magnitude and would already be breached by Gen1, OneWeb, and Iridium. Generally, the FCC appears to be saying that satellites without operating thrusters are unacceptable in LEO and that it rejects the concept of self-cleaning orbits.In anticipation of a quick breach of this condition, SpaceX might as well include a new mitigation plan in its upcoming v-band modification for Gen2 and start developing a deorbit package on a specialized satellite.
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 12/02/2022 04:17 pmAt first blush, this satellite failure requirement seems unnecessarily draconian by several orders of magnitude and would already be breached by Gen1, OneWeb, and Iridium. Generally, the FCC appears to be saying that satellites without operating thrusters are unacceptable in LEO and that it rejects the concept of self-cleaning orbits.Quote from: gongora on 12/01/2022 11:50 pmSome excerpts from the 74 page document:...aa. In the event of satellite failures resulting in more than 100 post-failure object years, SpaceX may not deploy any additional satellites until the Commission has approved a license modification that includes an updated orbital debris mitigation plan addressing reduction in the failure rate or mitigation of the risk of satellite failures.Is it something that SpaceX expects to be able to easily meet in the normal course of events with no additional effort?Tighter that it needs to be is not necessarily draconian. Sometimes it's just lazy, and this could either SpaceX, the regulator, or both. (And in this context lazy may be a virtue)
Quote from: Barley on 12/02/2022 04:43 pmQuote from: RedLineTrain on 12/02/2022 04:17 pmAt first blush, this satellite failure requirement seems unnecessarily draconian by several orders of magnitude and would already be breached by Gen1, OneWeb, and Iridium. Generally, the FCC appears to be saying that satellites without operating thrusters are unacceptable in LEO and that it rejects the concept of self-cleaning orbits.Quote from: gongora on 12/01/2022 11:50 pmSome excerpts from the 74 page document:...aa. In the event of satellite failures resulting in more than 100 post-failure object years, SpaceX may not deploy any additional satellites until the Commission has approved a license modification that includes an updated orbital debris mitigation plan addressing reduction in the failure rate or mitigation of the risk of satellite failures.Is it something that SpaceX expects to be able to easily meet in the normal course of events with no additional effort?Tighter that it needs to be is not necessarily draconian. Sometimes it's just lazy, and this could either SpaceX, the regulator, or both. (And in this context lazy may be a virtue)I read this as something which should be fairly easy to appeal/push back against. I do think that it's somewhat draconian as written, but the FCC's heart is in the right place: they're signaling that if you're going to operate a big constellation, you have a higher bar to jump over in terms of reliability. That's the right thing to do. Now we'll get some extensive haggling over the correct number.
I wonder what would be the response after 5 years has passed and the number of operational failed failed time on orbit was still lower than the threshold. It would produce a valid trigger value for each constellation based on that constellation's size.Also how would the orbital operational altitude be calculated in?