SpaceMobile Constellation (AST & Science)

[StraumliBlight]

AST SpaceMobile Secures $43 Million Contract in Support of U.S. Space Development Agency Through Prime Contractor [Feb 26]

AST SpaceMobile today announced a new contract award in support of the United States Space Development Agency (SDA) through a prime contractor, with total expected revenue of $43 million.

As part of the U.S. Space Force, SDA will accelerate delivery of needed space-based capabilities to the joint warfighter to support terrestrial missions through development, fielding, and operation of the Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture.

This contract follows successful testing on BlueWalker-3 in orbit under the previous contract announced in February 2024 and further demonstrates the unique capabilities of AST SpaceMobile's technology for specialized government applications. The company will utilize its next generation Block 2 BlueBird satellites, featuring the largest commercial phased array antennas ever deployed in low Earth orbit – spanning an unprecedented 2,400 square feet – setting a new standard for advanced connectivity and performance.

“This second contract supporting the SDA underscores the confidence in AST SpaceMobile’s innovative technology and its potential to support critical government missions,” said Chris Ivory, Chief Commercial Officer and Head of Government Business of AST SpaceMobile. “We are deploying groundbreaking technology to create robust and resilient communications solutions and to enable new use cases for the U.S. government."

[Tywin]

Could the future BlueWalker give internet direct to house too?

With small modem device?

Could they be direct competence of Starlink and Kuiper, etc?

[Tywin]

By the way, next launch of BlueWaker GEN2 soon, on LVM-III of ISRO...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LVM3_launches

[eeergo]

Gatekeeping of LEO megaconstellation real estate by SpaceX against AST:

https://www.scribd.com/document/891559005/SpaceX-Comments-on-AST-MOD-Application

Granted, the objections are IMO legitimate and AST's practices have been, and continue to be, quite dodgy - but it's quite ironic they come from where they come, with their own laissez-faire track record. When Starlink was deployed to such a level as BlueBirds are now, I very much doubt their analyses were on a level as robust as they now criticize AST for not having - including coordination with NSF and a proposed moratorium on further launches until "impacts to astronomy" are addressed (which Starlink *certainly* didn't suffer from, continuing to ignore or play around the very loose barebones recommendation limits from the astronomy community, with 2 orders of magnitude more S/C in orbit). Also, they quote space-track.org as their tracking source :\

[thespacecow]

AST and their partners AT&T/Verizon/Orange/etc tried to stop SpaceX/T-Mobile D2D service by filing objection to FCC:

https://www.pcmag.com/news/att-verizon-tell-fcc-to-reject-spacex-plan-for-cellular-starlink
https://www.pcmag.com/news/spacex-slams-ast-spacemobile-as-a-meme-stock-out-to-stop-cellular-starlink

So SpaceX fighting back by objecting AST in front of FCC is fair game.

Or as kids like to say on X these days: FAFO

[eeergo]

That's quite a silly take (re. FAFO). It shouldn't be about fiefs, but about actual merits for or against an argument. I know it's not a popular approach among "kids on X", but here we are: actually pondering whether, objectively, there might be such a thing as unacceptable risks associated with too large, far too many satellites with poor regulation compliance (or no regulation at all).

As I said in my initial post: the objections raised by SpaceX are IMO legitimate, especially considering precedence with AST's actions. It's just hypocritical of them to raise objections held against them in the past (and largely ignored, some even to this day), as you say mostly as retribution.

[thespacecow]

SpaceX detractor: "It should be about the merit of the argument"

Also SpaceX detractor: totally ignoring the merit of the argument, spending nearly the entire post ranting about SpaceX, in an AST thread no less.

That is silly.

[StraumliBlight]

AST SpaceMobile Announces Agreement to Acquire Global S-Band Spectrum Priority Rights Held under the International Telecommunication Union [Aug 6]

On August 5, 2025, AST SpaceMobile entered into an agreement to acquire an entity that holds certain S-Band ITU priority rights to MSS (Mobile Satellite Services) frequencies in the range of 1980-2010 MHz and 2170-2200 MHz, for use in low Earth orbit (the “Transaction”). These spectrum priority rights will provide AST SpaceMobile a path to offer services in these spectrum bands around the world, subject to country-level regulatory approvals, supplementing the Company’s core global 3GPP cellular spectrum strategy. The Transaction has a total consideration of $64.5 million, to be paid in stock or cash at the Company’s election, with $26 million paid at closing and deferred consideration of $38.5 million, a portion of which is subject to achievement of performance-based milestones.

[eeergo]

SpaceX detractor: "It should be about the merit of the argument"

Also SpaceX detractor: totally ignoring the merit of the argument, spending nearly the entire post ranting about SpaceX, in an AST thread no less.

That is silly.

Interesting that a "SpaceX detractor" is 100% legitimizing SpaceX's arguments. Guess it's the tribalist's view.

The 'merit' of your argument was that, since AST and others had complained about Starlink in the past, it's only fair SpaceX does the same now, even if they have repeatedly acted in a comparable way to their complaints against AST. That's a pretty weak merit, IMO, and solely based on a retributive standard, not on what's actually happening in orbit.

[thespacecow]

SpaceX detractor: "It should be about the merit of the argument"

Also SpaceX detractor: totally ignoring the merit of the argument, spending nearly the entire post ranting about SpaceX, in an AST thread no less.

That is silly.

Interesting that a "SpaceX detractor" is 100% legitimizing SpaceX's arguments. Guess it's the tribalist's view.

The 'merit' of your argument was that, since AST and others had complained about Starlink in the past, it's only fair SpaceX does the same now, even if they have repeatedly acted in a comparable way to their complaints against AST. That's a pretty weak merit, IMO, and solely based on a retributive standard, not on what's actually happening in orbit.

When I said "merit of argument" I was referring to the argument by SpaceX and AST in front of FCC, not our comments on this forum.

If SpaceX's argument is legit, then it doesn't matter what SpaceX has or has not done, the merit of their argument in the argument itself, not the argumentor's credentials. Devoting most of your post to rant about SpaceX is not only off topic for this thread, it also contradicts your own claim that we should evaluate arguments based on their merit.

[eeergo]

SpaceX detractor: "It should be about the merit of the argument"

Also SpaceX detractor: totally ignoring the merit of the argument, spending nearly the entire post ranting about SpaceX, in an AST thread no less.

That is silly.

Interesting that a "SpaceX detractor" is 100% legitimizing SpaceX's arguments. Guess it's the tribalist's view.

The 'merit' of your argument was that, since AST and others had complained about Starlink in the past, it's only fair SpaceX does the same now, even if they have repeatedly acted in a comparable way to their complaints against AST. That's a pretty weak merit, IMO, and solely based on a retributive standard, not on what's actually happening in orbit.

When I said "merit of argument" I was referring to the argument by SpaceX and AST in front of FCC, not our comments on this forum.

If SpaceX's argument is legit, then it doesn't matter what SpaceX has or has not done, the merit of their argument in the argument itself, not the argumentor's credentials. Devoting most of your post to rant about SpaceX is not only off topic for this thread, it also contradicts your own claim that we should evaluate arguments based on their merit.

Of course the merit of the argument is in itself. It's also quite an unnecessary truism to spend 3 posts on pointing this out, when I spelled it out in my first post:  "the objections are IMO legitimate". Your first post didn't deal with the merit of the argument, but the legal precedents against SpaceX and the pertinence of retribution, or as you put it in "X" parlance: FAFO. Hardly the merit of the argument.

Anyway, the merits of the arguments in the document filed by SpaceX (namely: too many satellites with too loose SSA and public accountability as to its characteristics, too large satellites -actually just a different form factor vs Starlink, not really much larger in area- with poor mitigation of externalities, or in normal-speak, not caring much about where they fall, what they do to the space or ground environment, or how they affect conservation of a shared natural resource that is the night sky...) are all criticisms that still apply to Starlink, either unmitigated or having just been addressed at a barebones compromise after long periods of feet-dragging and obscurantism.

[Vultur]

I think there's also a risk/benefit issue.

Depending on how much you value avoiding monopolies, there's a potential argument that the first LEO internet mega constellation has a much better risk/benefit (since it provides a capability that did not previously exist, fast internet to remote locations without fiber) than future ones (whose benefit is only to make that service potentially* cheaper via competition, rather than providing something genuinely new).


*And I don't think that is at all guaranteed

[thespacecow]

Of course the merit of the argument is in itself. It's also quite an unnecessary truism to spend 3 posts on pointing this out, when I spelled it out in my first post:  "the objections are IMO legitimate". Your first post didn't deal with the merit of the argument, but the legal precedents against SpaceX and the pertinence of retribution, or as you put it in "X" parlance: FAFO. Hardly the merit of the argument.

I made that post because your original post seems to imply SpaceX doesn't have the standing to raise these concerns with AST, since they're "guilty of the crime" themselves so to speak. I'm just telling you AST started this, if by your standard one cannot criticize someone if they themselves are guilty, then AST doesn't have the standing to file objections against Starlink either, yet you give AST a pass here, showing anti-SpaceX bias.

Anyway, the merits of the arguments in the document filed by SpaceX (namely: too many satellites with too loose SSA and public accountability as to its characteristics, too large satellites -actually just a different form factor vs Starlink, not really much larger in area- with poor mitigation of externalities, or in normal-speak, not caring much about where they fall, what they do to the space or ground environment, or how they affect conservation of a shared natural resource that is the night sky...) are all criticisms that still apply to Starlink, either unmitigated or having just been addressed at a barebones compromise after long periods of feet-dragging and obscurantism.

False, the AST issues don't apply to Starlink at all. For example SpaceX didn't complain about AST's satellite being too large, they said AST didn't follow the rules and complete the paperwork (e.g. coordinate with NSF). There's nothing wrong with large satellite if you can show you complied with the rules.

[eeergo]

False, the AST issues don't apply to Starlink at all. For example SpaceX didn't complain about AST's satellite being too large, they said AST didn't follow the rules and complete the paperwork (e.g. coordinate with NSF). There's nothing wrong with large satellite if you can show you complied with the rules.

Not at all:

"given the massive size of these satellites, AST should have taken an even more conservative approach" [beyond SOP]
"The difference in collision risk [...] is particularly stark in this case given the size of these spacecraft"
"The proposed Block 2 satellites are three times larger, presenting an even greater threat to optical astronomy"
[ ...and my personal favorite, the pinnacle of hypocrisy... ]
"AST routinely brags about the outlandish size of its satellites. But these large satellites may dramatically increase the risk of all operations in their orbits and below. If anything, given the size of these satellites, AST should be willing to go beyond what was required for others [lol] so that it can mitigate the risks it intends to cause"

Except their critique of untransparent demisability for some components and propellant budgeting (both minor points in the document, and technically), the rest of the letter is JUST about complaining about the implications of the S/C sizes, even deriding them explicitly. Rich when v3 Starlinks would be quite a bit larger, and v2 are already quite hefty, plus orders of magnitude more numerous.

Another truism: of course there's nothing wrong with anything as long as you can comply with the rules. Pesky thing is, the more extreme a spacecraft gets in any parameter, the more difficult it generally becomes to comply by all rules simultaneously and easily. It's larger: it will have more mass potentially surviving reentry, it will offer more collision probability, it will reflect more light, it will create more risk for SSA, if mitigation measures are kept equal with respect to smaller, less numerous birds.

[thespacecow]

False, the AST issues don't apply to Starlink at all. For example SpaceX didn't complain about AST's satellite being too large, they said AST didn't follow the rules and complete the paperwork (e.g. coordinate with NSF). There's nothing wrong with large satellite if you can show you complied with the rules.

Not at all:

1. "given the massive size of these satellites, AST should have taken an even more conservative approach" [beyond SOP]
2. "The difference in collision risk [...] is particularly stark in this case given the size of these spacecraft"
3. "The proposed Block 2 satellites are three times larger, presenting an even greater threat to optical astronomy"
[ ...and my personal favorite, the pinnacle of hypocrisy... ]
4. "AST routinely brags about the outlandish size of its satellites. But these large satellites may dramatically increase the risk of all operations in their orbits and below. If anything, given the size of these satellites, AST should be willing to go beyond what was required for others [lol] so that it can mitigate the risks it intends to cause"

Except their critique of untransparent demisability for some components and propellant budgeting (both minor points in the document, and technically), the rest of the letter is JUST about complaining about the implications of the S/C sizes, even deriding them explicitly. Rich when v3 Starlinks would be quite a bit larger, and v2 are already quite hefty, plus orders of magnitude more numerous.

Wrong on all accounts

Literally every statement you quoted is not a complaint about size, but criticizing AST for not following the rules and requirements:
1. AST's evaluation of collision probability didn't consider uncontrolled tumble.
2. AST didn't assess passive decay large debris collision probability or passive decay dwell time
3. AST didn't coordinate with NSF wrt Block 2
4. AST didn't comply with the requirements FCC levied on Starlink Gen2

So there is no "complaining about the implications of the S/C sizes", instead the complain is about AST doesn't follow rules and requirements.

[eeergo]

Of course. Let's just say that readers can make up their own mind. Again, nothing -including size- is forbidden by divine law, but by the fact that it makes harder to be in compliance with regulations, be it the government's or common sense.

[StraumliBlight]

Q2 Earnings Press Release [Aug 11]

“In orbit today, we have six satellites, five fully operational and one test satellite, for both commercial and government applications. We have completed the assembly of microns for phased arrays of eight Block 2 BlueBird satellites, and we are on target to complete 40 satellites equivalent of microns by early 2026 to support full voice, data, and video space-based cellular broadband services.”

Q2 Earnings Presentation

Anticipating at least five orbital launches by end of Q1 2026, with orbital launches every one to two months on average to reach goal of 45 to 60 satellites launched during 2025 and 2026

FM1 is expected to be ready to ship in August 2025 with a mutually determined launch date thereafter, becoming AST SpaceMobile’s seventh satellite in orbit

FORM 10-Q


AST responds to SpaceX opposition. [Aug 11]

In its opposition, Space X asks: “what is AST hiding?”  Although no doubt intended as rhetorical, AST SpaceMobile nonetheless affirms that it is not “hiding” anything. It is, however, seeking confidential treatment for proprietary and commercially sensitive information. The Commission should dismiss or deny SpaceX’s opposition.

[sstli2]

Tim Farrar poking some pretty major holes in AST's earnings call: https://bsky.app/profile/tmfassociates.bsky.social/post/3lw6l7kw35s2f

[nklsd21]

Tim Farrar poking some pretty major holes in AST's earnings call: https://bsky.app/profile/tmfassociates.bsky.social/post/3lw6l7kw35s2f

Farrar is a FUDster that has been wrong about AST over and over again

[thespacecow]

The blog post is much easier to read: https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2025/08/12/delays-delays/

Future predictions aside, it is a fact that back in 2022 AT&T CEO claims AST is 18 months ahead of SpaceX:

AT&T Inc. Chief Executive Officer John Stankey said his company is way ahead of T-Mobile US Inc. and Elon Musk in efforts to provide mobile phone service to remote areas via satellites.

...

“I would say we probably have an 18 month lead on this,” Stankey said in an interview Wednesday. “SpaceX is going to have to go through the same process. And they’re not going to have their satellite up for testing until the middle of next year.”

Took just 3 years to turn this 18 months lead into 18 months behind.