Author Topic: Lynk Global (formerly Ubiquitilink)  (Read 53450 times)

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2847
  • Liked: 1092
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Ubiquitilink
« Reply #20 on: 03/15/2019 03:06 am »
Lockheed now is crowing about a 4G LTE over satellite system...

Lockheed Martin Develops World-First LTE-Over-Satellite System

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10222
  • US
  • Liked: 13922
  • Likes Given: 5958
Re: Ubiquitilink
« Reply #21 on: 03/15/2019 09:58 am »
Lockheed now is crowing about a 4G LTE over satellite system...

Lockheed Martin Develops World-First LTE-Over-Satellite System

But in the Lockheed system the phones aren't talking directly to the satellites.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10222
  • US
  • Liked: 13922
  • Likes Given: 5958
Re: Ubiquitilink
« Reply #22 on: 04/09/2019 07:18 pm »
0646-EX-ST-2019
Flying another payload on the next Cygnus flight.  Again it will be sent up as cargo and then mounted to the outside of the hatch by the astronauts before Cygnus leaves ISS.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10292
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 727
Re: Ubiquitilink
« Reply #23 on: 04/29/2019 01:52 am »
My understanding is that the next mission will be for 6 months.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10292
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 727
Re: Ubiquitilink
« Reply #24 on: 05/20/2019 07:42 pm »
Hrm, UbiquitiLink says phase one is 24-36 sats at 500km. Tethers Unlimited GobalFi direct-smartphone broadband (DTSB) system says 27 sats for "Cell Towers In Space"

UbiquitiLink says they will need to orbit thousands of satellites for full coverage.

GlobalFi is in the same boat. 27 sats is for hourly coverage (IoT/alert oriented) I believe, according to the documents available

Hold on a minute. How can this company provide hourly coverage with 27 satellites?

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2847
  • Liked: 1092
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Ubiquitilink
« Reply #25 on: 05/21/2019 11:34 pm »
Hrm, UbiquitiLink says phase one is 24-36 sats at 500km. Tethers Unlimited GobalFi direct-smartphone broadband (DTSB) system says 27 sats for "Cell Towers In Space"

UbiquitiLink says they will need to orbit thousands of satellites for full coverage.

GlobalFi is in the same boat. 27 sats is for hourly coverage (IoT/alert oriented) I believe, according to the documents available

Hold on a minute. How can this company provide hourly coverage with 27 satellites?

For GlobalFi, 3 sats per orbital plane, 9 orbital planes  with poor high latitude coverage perhaps? I don't have a working copy of STK handy at the moment to check the veracity of that, but if Ubiquitilink is proposing 24 on the low end for initial IoT capability, 27 is probably not an unreasonable number.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10292
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 727
Re: Ubiquitilink
« Reply #26 on: 05/22/2019 09:01 pm »


GlobalFi is in the same boat. 27 sats is for hourly coverage (IoT/alert oriented) I believe, according to the documents available

Hold on a minute. How can this company provide hourly coverage with 27 satellites?

For GlobalFi, 3 sats per orbital plane, 9 orbital planes  with poor high latitude coverage perhaps? I don't have a working copy of STK handy at the moment to check the veracity of that, but if Ubiquitilink is proposing 24 on the low end for initial IoT capability, 27 is probably not an unreasonable number.

Let’s say we are in the Real World. How is GlobalFi going to put 3 satellites in an orbital plane, and then fill out another 8 evenly spaced planes? Give me some sort of launch manifest for that configuration.....

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2847
  • Liked: 1092
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Ubiquitilink
« Reply #27 on: 05/23/2019 12:44 am »


GlobalFi is in the same boat. 27 sats is for hourly coverage (IoT/alert oriented) I believe, according to the documents available

Hold on a minute. How can this company provide hourly coverage with 27 satellites?

For GlobalFi, 3 sats per orbital plane, 9 orbital planes  with poor high latitude coverage perhaps? I don't have a working copy of STK handy at the moment to check the veracity of that, but if Ubiquitilink is proposing 24 on the low end for initial IoT capability, 27 is probably not an unreasonable number.

Let’s say we are in the Real World. How is GlobalFi going to put 3 satellites in an orbital plane, and then fill out another 8 evenly spaced planes? Give me some sort of launch manifest for that configuration.....

I have no skin in the game here, but GlobalFi sats appear to make use of SpiderFab on-orbit assembly to assemble the phased array hex dome at a minimum. So if the bus mass for 3 sats and a SpiderFab are appropriate, you could potentially mount the SpiderFab and sat parts on a RocketLabs Photon bus and Launch via Electron, but that would then require 9 launches. At roughly $5 million a launch, you're looking at $50 million for the set launch.

The alternative is a single Falcon 9 launched Spiderfab host bus with some maneuver capability (something in the vein of a mobile ESPA ring like SHERPA perhaps?) carrying the parts for 27 sats. Since on-orbit assembly is not quick, you can take the opportunity to use the time required for orbital plane phasing to manufacture one plane of sats, release 3 and repeat, until all 9 planes are filled. The partial existence proof is 60 flat packed StarLink sats on one Falcon 9. If you cut that number in half, and effectively design a parts carrier bus host for Spiderfab, that should be roughly in the same mass range. Launch costs would be in a similar range?

There's the dev costs for the mobile parts carrier that hosts Spiderfab though. Photon is somewhat a ready made bus for this purpose for riding on Electron, and SHERPA might be appropriate considering the non-propulsive versions have flown on Falcon 9.

To be clear, GlobalFi also was meant by TUI to show the superiority of Spiderfab manufactured sats that need extremely large antennas and solar arrays in a compact launch package that can not be affordably done with existing deployment mechanisms (and without the deployment mechanism design penalties). 9 plane orbital phasing with one Spiderfab host would take a while though and puts all your eggs in one basket if Spiderfab doesn't live up to the hype. Splitting the deployment to multiple Photons would let you iron out some wrinkles (hell, using a Photon as an initial test/dev sat, then do the full deployment push on Falcon 9 is also reasonable to raise confidence in Spiderfab).

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10292
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 727
Re: Ubiquitilink
« Reply #28 on: 05/23/2019 04:13 am »


GlobalFi is in the same boat. 27 sats is for hourly coverage (IoT/alert oriented) I believe, according to the documents available

Hold on a minute. How can this company provide hourly coverage with 27 satellites?

For GlobalFi, 3 sats per orbital plane, 9 orbital planes  with poor high latitude coverage perhaps? I don't have a working copy of STK handy at the moment to check the veracity of that, but if Ubiquitilink is proposing 24 on the low end for initial IoT capability, 27 is probably not an unreasonable number.

Let’s say we are in the Real World. How is GlobalFi going to put 3 satellites in an orbital plane, and then fill out another 8 evenly spaced planes? Give me some sort of launch manifest for that configuration.....

I have no skin in the game here, but GlobalFi sats appear to make use of SpiderFab on-orbit assembly to assemble the phased array hex dome at a minimum. So if the bus mass for 3 sats and a SpiderFab are appropriate, you could potentially mount the SpiderFab and sat parts on a RocketLabs Photon bus and Launch via Electron, but that would then require 9 launches. At roughly $5 million a launch, you're looking at $50 million for the set launch.

The alternative is a single Falcon 9 launched Spiderfab host bus with some maneuver capability (something in the vein of a mobile ESPA ring like SHERPA perhaps?) carrying the parts for 27 sats. Since on-orbit assembly is not quick, you can take the opportunity to use the time required for orbital plane phasing to manufacture one plane of sats, release 3 and repeat, until all 9 planes are filled. The partial existence proof is 60 flat packed StarLink sats on one Falcon 9. If you cut that number in half, and effectively design a parts carrier bus host for Spiderfab, that should be roughly in the same mass range. Launch costs would be in a similar range?

There's the dev costs for the mobile parts carrier that hosts Spiderfab though. Photon is somewhat a ready made bus for this purpose for riding on Electron, and SHERPA might be appropriate considering the non-propulsive versions have flown on Falcon 9.

To be clear, GlobalFi also was meant by TUI to show the superiority of Spiderfab manufactured sats that need extremely large antennas and solar arrays in a compact launch package that can not be affordably done with existing deployment mechanisms (and without the deployment mechanism design penalties). 9 plane orbital phasing with one Spiderfab host would take a while though and puts all your eggs in one basket if Spiderfab doesn't live up to the hype. Splitting the deployment to multiple Photons would let you iron out some wrinkles (hell, using a Photon as an initial test/dev sat, then do the full deployment push on Falcon 9 is also reasonable to raise confidence in Spiderfab).

A bit of hand waving there.

How exactly would a GlobalFi spacecraft “phase” from one plane to the next?

Offline ZChris13

Re: Ubiquitilink
« Reply #29 on: 05/23/2019 04:43 am »
A bit of hand waving there.

How exactly would a GlobalFi spacecraft “phase” from one plane to the next?
Earth has an equatorial bulge that causes plane changes over time at different rates for different altitudes
« Last Edit: 05/23/2019 05:44 pm by ZChris13 »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10292
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 727
Re: Ubiquitilink
« Reply #30 on: 05/23/2019 11:45 am »
A bit of hand waving there.

How exactly would a GlobalFi spacecraft “phase” from one plane to the next?
Earth has an equatorial bulge that cause plane changes over time at different rates for different altitudes

Exactly.

So, how to move GlobalFi satellites from one plane to another? What’s the initial orbital altitude, what’s the transfer orbit altitude? How long to move from one plane to another via precession?

The difference between planes is 40 degrees. Unless the difference in altitude between the working orbit and the transfer orbit is hundreds of kilometers, using precession to change the plane by 90 degrees may take much more than a year.

And then there is the question of maneuvering from the transfer orbit to the working orbit.

Forgetting about all that stuff about in orbit assembly of satellites, my opinion is that a constellation of 9 planes is probably going to require 9 launches from the ground. Launches of only 3 satellites on one rocket are only economically viable if the satellites are large, unless there are other passengers who want to go to your initial orbit. Is GlobalFi launching large payloads?

I am trying to get away from the hand waving and instead look at the Real World issues of covering the planet with 27 satellites.

« Last Edit: 05/23/2019 02:34 pm by Danderman »

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2847
  • Liked: 1092
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Ubiquitilink
« Reply #31 on: 05/24/2019 05:15 am »
A bit of hand waving there.

How exactly would a GlobalFi spacecraft “phase” from one plane to the next?
Earth has an equatorial bulge that cause plane changes over time at different rates for different altitudes

Exactly.

So, how to move GlobalFi satellites from one plane to another? What’s the initial orbital altitude, what’s the transfer orbit altitude? How long to move from one plane to another via precession?

The difference between planes is 40 degrees. Unless the difference in altitude between the working orbit and the transfer orbit is hundreds of kilometers, using precession to change the plane by 90 degrees may take much more than a year.

And then there is the question of maneuvering from the transfer orbit to the working orbit.

Forgetting about all that stuff about in orbit assembly of satellites, my opinion is that a constellation of 9 planes is probably going to require 9 launches from the ground. Launches of only 3 satellites on one rocket are only economically viable if the satellites are large, unless there are other passengers who want to go to your initial orbit. Is GlobalFi launching large payloads?

I am trying to get away from the hand waving and instead look at the Real World issues of covering the planet with 27 satellites.


I feel like somehow I've turned into a GlobalFi salesman, when this is supposed to be a Ubiquitilink thread...

The thesis that only large sats are economically viable for launch as the primary customer as a multi-sat launch without ridealongs is increasingly being upended by visible progress in hardware and existence proofs, so I don't agree with that statement. The time spent phasing will be non trivial for an all-up launch unless some kind of trick is used.

TUI was likely baselining their Hydros thruster for GlobalFi, which is a small electric thruster using water propellant as a plasma thruster. This would give a fair amount of agility to the sats by that alone to cover orbit raising from the initial build orbit, but also opens up opportunities for refueling.

Starlink sats for the first commercial version are stated to be 227 Kg. Iridium NEXT are 860 Kg, and OneWeb are 150 Kg, Telesat's prototype sat was 70 kg. With Electron/Photon, you are looking at around 150 Kg for raw payload attached to Photon. I have not seen open literature on the expected mass of GlobalFi sats.

TUI says their OrbWeaver demo, which would be similar to GlobalFi sats being built by Spiderfab, would be 320kg, not including the aluminum ESPA ring which it would consume to manufacture the reflector antenna. It's not entirely clear what the mass breakdown is for actual satellite versus Spiderfab, especially in comparison to OrbWeaver which intends to build only a single sat, as well as other components which could be replaced by services from the Photon bus. The stated mass suggests that the OrbWeaver iteration at least would be unsuitable for Electron, and the existence proof of Telesat's prototype would suggest that making a 45 kg sat (which might allow a 3 sat launch with Spiderfab on Photon) would be somewhat difficult. That could force the number of launches on Electron up to 27 if you can effectively only fit something OneWeb class in mass for a single sat due to component mass (thus effectively emulating OrbWeaver at half it's mass), and you would be looking at something near 4.1 metric tons for an all up launch.

I haven't seen any open literature on the mass of Ubiquitilink sats yet, so can't really say anything constructive about mass/design.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10292
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 727
Re: Ubiquitilink
« Reply #32 on: 05/24/2019 08:24 pm »
A bit of hand waving there.

How exactly would a GlobalFi spacecraft “phase” from one plane to the next?
Earth has an equatorial bulge that cause plane changes over time at different rates for different altitudes

Exactly.

So, how to move GlobalFi satellites from one plane to another? What’s the initial orbital altitude, what’s the transfer orbit altitude? How long to move from one plane to another via precession?

The difference between planes is 40 degrees. Unless the difference in altitude between the working orbit and the transfer orbit is hundreds of kilometers, using precession to change the plane by 90 degrees may take much more than a year.

And then there is the question of maneuvering from the transfer orbit to the working orbit.

Forgetting about all that stuff about in orbit assembly of satellites, my opinion is that a constellation of 9 planes is probably going to require 9 launches from the ground. Launches of only 3 satellites on one rocket are only economically viable if the satellites are large, unless there are other passengers who want to go to your initial orbit. Is GlobalFi launching large payloads?

I am trying to get away from the hand waving and instead look at the Real World issues of covering the planet with 27 satellites.


I feel like somehow I've turned into a GlobalFi salesman, when this is supposed to be a Ubiquitilink thread...

The thesis that only large sats are economically viable for launch as the primary customer as a multi-sat launch without ridealongs is increasingly being upended by visible progress in hardware and existence proofs, so I don't agree with that statement. The time spent phasing will be non trivial for an all-up launch unless some kind of trick is used.

TUI was likely baselining their Hydros thruster for GlobalFi, which is a small electric thruster using water propellant as a plasma thruster. This would give a fair amount of agility to the sats by that alone to cover orbit raising from the initial build orbit, but also opens up opportunities for refueling.

Starlink sats for the first commercial version are stated to be 227 Kg. Iridium NEXT are 860 Kg, and OneWeb are 150 Kg, Telesat's prototype sat was 70 kg. With Electron/Photon, you are looking at around 150 Kg for raw payload attached to Photon. I have not seen open literature on the expected mass of GlobalFi sats.

TUI says their OrbWeaver demo, which would be similar to GlobalFi sats being built by Spiderfab, would be 320kg, not including the aluminum ESPA ring which it would consume to manufacture the reflector antenna. It's not entirely clear what the mass breakdown is for actual satellite versus Spiderfab, especially in comparison to OrbWeaver which intends to build only a single sat, as well as other components which could be replaced by services from the Photon bus. The stated mass suggests that the OrbWeaver iteration at least would be unsuitable for Electron, and the existence proof of Telesat's prototype would suggest that making a 45 kg sat (which might allow a 3 sat launch with Spiderfab on Photon) would be somewhat difficult. That could force the number of launches on Electron up to 27 if you can effectively only fit something OneWeb class in mass for a single sat due to component mass (thus effectively emulating OrbWeaver at half it's mass), and you would be looking at something near 4.1 metric tons for an all up launch.

I haven't seen any open literature on the mass of Ubiquitilink sats yet, so can't really say anything constructive about mass/design.

My reference to GlobalFi are clearly confusing you.

My point is that generating an hourly service with a few dozen satellites is non-trivial.

So.... regardless of the specific satellite company, regardless of the payload mass, regardless of the launcher type, and not using Star Trek technology, what is the launch architecture to create an hourly service?

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10222
  • US
  • Liked: 13922
  • Likes Given: 5958
Re: Ubiquitilink
« Reply #33 on: 05/25/2019 12:02 am »
My point is that generating an hourly service with a few dozen satellites is non-trivial.

So.... regardless of the specific satellite company, regardless of the payload mass, regardless of the launcher type, and not using Star Trek technology, what is the launch architecture to create an hourly service?

Iridium has constant coverage with 5 1/2 dozen satellites.  That makes hourly coverage with half as many satellites sound very reasonable.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10292
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 727
Re: Ubiquitilink
« Reply #34 on: 05/25/2019 03:57 am »
My point is that generating an hourly service with a few dozen satellites is non-trivial.

So.... regardless of the specific satellite company, regardless of the payload mass, regardless of the launcher type, and not using Star Trek technology, what is the launch architecture to create an hourly service?

Iridium has constant coverage with 5 1/2 dozen satellites.  That makes hourly coverage with half as many satellites sound very reasonable.

Not exactly.

Iridium is not a good example, nor is Globalstar.

Filling a plane of Iridium or Globalstar would require a launch on Falcon 9 or similar launcher. That’s a lot of money. On the other hand, to provide hourly coverage with a company employing small seats is much more difficult, since a plane may be filled with just 1 - 3 satellites, and that is probably not economically feasible - there just aren’t many launchers available to put 300 kg in orbit.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10222
  • US
  • Liked: 13922
  • Likes Given: 5958
Re: Ubiquitilink
« Reply #35 on: 07/17/2019 10:28 pm »
[GeekWire] UbiquitiLink wins $5.2M boost for satellite service that works with standard phones
Quote
Virginia-based UbiquitiLink says it has raised another $5.2 million in seed funding for a network that aims to provide satellite connectivity for standard mobile devices.
...
Miller said more than 20 mobile operators have already signed testing agreements. Cellular One in Arizona, Telefonica’s MoviStar service in Argentina and Vodafone Hutchison in Australia are among the publicly disclosed partners, he said.
...
An upgraded version of the payload is due for launch later this month, with testing scheduled to begin next month. If all the tests go well (and if the company attracts additional funding), UbiquitiLink could start launching operational satellites and go commercial by the end of 2020 or in early 2021, Miller said.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10292
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 727
Re: Ubiquitilink
« Reply #36 on: 07/29/2019 11:15 am »
Ubiquitilink has a new payload at ISS now, courtesy of CRS-18.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10292
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 727
Re: Ubiquitilink
« Reply #37 on: 08/02/2019 10:18 pm »
https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/2/20746947/ubiquitilink-satellite-cell-tower-space-mega-constellation

Space startup aims to launch thousands of satellite ‘cell towers’ that connect to the average phone


Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10222
  • US
  • Liked: 13922
  • Likes Given: 5958
Re: Ubiquitilink
« Reply #38 on: 08/02/2019 10:51 pm »
Updated filing of test sites, adding sites in Argentina, Chile, Canada.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8148
  • Liked: 6808
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Ubiquitilink
« Reply #39 on: 08/04/2019 12:24 am »
My point is that generating an hourly service with a few dozen satellites is non-trivial.

So.... regardless of the specific satellite company, regardless of the payload mass, regardless of the launcher type, and not using Star Trek technology, what is the launch architecture to create an hourly service?

Iridium has constant coverage with 5 1/2 dozen satellites.  That makes hourly coverage with half as many satellites sound very reasonable.

Not exactly.

Iridium is not a good example, nor is Globalstar.

Filling a plane of Iridium or Globalstar would require a launch on Falcon 9 or similar launcher. That’s a lot of money. On the other hand, to provide hourly coverage with a company employing small seats is much more difficult, since a plane may be filled with just 1 - 3 satellites, and that is probably not economically feasible - there just aren’t many launchers available to put 300 kg in orbit.

Drifting between planes isn't that hard if the satellites have a decent amount of propulsion.

Tags:
 

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