Given SpaceX has approval to use ~2Ghz of Ku spectrum for user downlink beams, that works out to 8 separate 240Mhz chunks (with 10Mhz guard bands). 1 of these is largely unusable due to radio astronomy protection, so 7 useable channels. Technically a sat from Gen1 and a sat from Gen2 could each beam 7x240Mhz onto a single cell, for a total of 14 beams. There’s also a whole polarization discussion, but I’m not well-versed enough to go into that.
Among other things, disclosure of the Confidential Materials would provide competitorsand potential competitors sensitive information on the operational details and capabilities of theSpaceX system and thereby enable unfair competition. Accordingly, public disclosure of any ofthe information contained in the Confidential Materials is likely to cause competitive injury andsubstantial irreparable harm. It is therefore exempted from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 4,and Section 0.457(d) of the Commission’s rules.
Peter B. de Selding is reporting that SpaceX filed a Gen2 Ka-, ku-, and w-band 30,000 satellite constellation. Would this be a refiling of Gen2 to add the w-band frequencies? Or could it be a Gen3 filing?I will be interested to see where the v-band frequencies land. Gen1?Edit: Oops, I now see that on March 22, SpaceX requested to add the v-band frequencies to 7,500 Gen2 satellites as well as ground stations and user terminals. Legal narrative attached. I don't recall what NCo value they had on the v-band.https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/1643253609822314496
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 04/04/2023 06:33 pmPeter B. de Selding is reporting that SpaceX filed a Gen2 Ka-, ku-, and w-band 30,000 satellite constellation. Would this be a refiling of Gen2 to add the w-band frequencies? Or could it be a Gen3 filing?I will be interested to see where the v-band frequencies land. Gen1?Edit: Oops, I now see that on March 22, SpaceX requested to add the v-band frequencies to 7,500 Gen2 satellites as well as ground stations and user terminals. Legal narrative attached. I don't recall what NCo value they had on the v-band.This confused me, but W-band is the ITU classification that encompasses E-Band. Trying to review the filing, but its friggin Microsoft Access. USASAT-NGSO-12 and USSAT-NGSO-3X.
Peter B. de Selding is reporting that SpaceX filed a Gen2 Ka-, ku-, and w-band 30,000 satellite constellation. Would this be a refiling of Gen2 to add the w-band frequencies? Or could it be a Gen3 filing?I will be interested to see where the v-band frequencies land. Gen1?Edit: Oops, I now see that on March 22, SpaceX requested to add the v-band frequencies to 7,500 Gen2 satellites as well as ground stations and user terminals. Legal narrative attached. I don't recall what NCo value they had on the v-band.
Quote from: virtuallynathan on 04/05/2023 02:03 amQuote from: RedLineTrain on 04/04/2023 06:33 pmPeter B. de Selding is reporting that SpaceX filed a Gen2 Ka-, ku-, and w-band 30,000 satellite constellation. Would this be a refiling of Gen2 to add the w-band frequencies? Or could it be a Gen3 filing?I will be interested to see where the v-band frequencies land. Gen1?Edit: Oops, I now see that on March 22, SpaceX requested to add the v-band frequencies to 7,500 Gen2 satellites as well as ground stations and user terminals. Legal narrative attached. I don't recall what NCo value they had on the v-band.This confused me, but W-band is the ITU classification that encompasses E-Band. Trying to review the filing, but its friggin Microsoft Access. USASAT-NGSO-12 and USSAT-NGSO-3X.USASAT-NGSO-12 filing does not look like it was made by SpaceX. Apogee and perigee are 1080 km. I looked at the "orbit" and "freq" tables in USSAT-NGSO-3X (I used mdb-tools on Linux to extract them). It looks like just a Gen2 update. W-band is the standard IEEE band name. E-band is not standard. The "freq" table lists 71000-74000/76000 MHz downlink and 81000-84000/86000 MHz uplink beams. The same ranges as in the Gen2 application. No V-band frequencies in USSAT-NGSO-3X filing.
Quote from: deadman1204 on 12/02/2022 02:13 pmQuote 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.SpaceX has done more to mitigate optical effects than any other company, but they’ve gotten more hate about it than anyone else. Without an international agreement, this may just hamper US constellations while doing nothing to reduce overall light pollution. No good deed ever goes unpunished.(It’s also a potential conflict of interest… space based astronomy will be revolutionized by the launch vehicle required for Starlink V2… ground based astronomy may have an interest in not being made largely obsolete? Or at least unduly dismissive of the BENEFITS to astronomy that Starlink’s launch vehicle brings to space astronomy… a launch vehicle which wouldn’t be adequately funded—or cost lowered—without the launch demand provided by megaconstellations.)
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.
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.
SES-MOD-20211216-01909Quotelicense authorizing operation of next-generation end-user earth stations (“UTs”) for use at fixed locations. In support of that application, SpaceX Services provided an analysis of the non-ionizing radiation levels for its UTs in compliance with the methods described in FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin Number 65 (Edition 97-01) (“Bulletin 65”) as adjusted to account for an updated IEEE standard that Bulletin 65 had relied upon in part.2 Those calculations demonstrated that the UTs will not result in exposure levels exceeding the applicable radiation hazard limits so long as they observe a maximum transmit duty cycle of 10.3 percent.Bulletin 65 states that it “is not intended to establish mandatory procedures, and other methods and procedures may be acceptable if based on sound engineering.” Moreover, the bulletin recognizes that “n some cases, . . . measurements or a more detailed analysis may be required.” In this case, a fundamental assumption of the IEEE analysis may not apply to the flat planar nature of the SpaceX Services UT.6 Accordingly, SpaceX Services has undertaken to directly measure power density emitted in the near field region—rather than calculate predicted values—to determine whether the UT would comply with the Commission’s radiation limits at a higher duty cycle. As demonstrated below, these measurements show that the UT will comply so long as it observes a maximum transmit duty cycle of 17.5 percent. Accordingly, SpaceX Services requests that its authorization be modified to allow operations up to that duty cycle.
license authorizing operation of next-generation end-user earth stations (“UTs”) for use at fixed locations. In support of that application, SpaceX Services provided an analysis of the non-ionizing radiation levels for its UTs in compliance with the methods described in FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin Number 65 (Edition 97-01) (“Bulletin 65”) as adjusted to account for an updated IEEE standard that Bulletin 65 had relied upon in part.2 Those calculations demonstrated that the UTs will not result in exposure levels exceeding the applicable radiation hazard limits so long as they observe a maximum transmit duty cycle of 10.3 percent.Bulletin 65 states that it “is not intended to establish mandatory procedures, and other methods and procedures may be acceptable if based on sound engineering.” Moreover, the bulletin recognizes that “n some cases, . . . measurements or a more detailed analysis may be required.” In this case, a fundamental assumption of the IEEE analysis may not apply to the flat planar nature of the SpaceX Services UT.6 Accordingly, SpaceX Services has undertaken to directly measure power density emitted in the near field region—rather than calculate predicted values—to determine whether the UT would comply with the Commission’s radiation limits at a higher duty cycle. As demonstrated below, these measurements show that the UT will comply so long as it observes a maximum transmit duty cycle of 17.5 percent. Accordingly, SpaceX Services requests that its authorization be modified to allow operations up to that duty cycle.
They made filings for several E-band gateways yesterday
Quote from: gongora on 05/19/2023 10:24 pmThey made filings for several E-band gateways yesterdayAnd five more, that's about 10 in two days
Quote from: gongora on 05/20/2023 03:19 pmQuote from: gongora on 05/19/2023 10:24 pmThey made filings for several E-band gateways yesterdayAnd five more, that's about 10 in two daysAnd about a dozen more yesterday
The newly created Space Bureau accepted SpaceX's application to provide direct-to-cell service and opened docket 23-135 for the discussion. Hopefully the new bureau works faster than the International Bureau.
