AST & Science, LLC hereby submits this application for a conventional experimental radio license to test off-the-shelf cellular handsets operating as mobile earth stations within a 24 km area in Texas, consistent with the terms and conditions of its existing special temporary authority for experimental testing of the same devices authorized to operate on the First Responder Network Authority’s nationwide public safety broadband network.
AST SpaceMobile@AST_SpaceMobile·🚀BlueBird 6 is ready to ship in August, and we are building microns and phased arrays for our next 40 satellites by early 2026!- Starting our campaign of launches every one to two months on average during 2025 and 2026- Over 400k sq ft of production facilities available soon- 1,200 workforce with satellite manufacturing in the USA- Microns to be completed for 40 BlueBirds by early 2026- Capacity to build 6 BlueBirds/month by year-endAt 2,400 sq ft, our next-gen BlueBirds will feature the largest commercial communications arrays ever in low Earth orbit—delivering space-based cellular broadband to everyone, everywhere, for good.
Quote from: eeergo on 08/08/2025 11:11 amQuote from: thespacecow on 08/08/2025 03:44 amFalse, 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:Quote1. "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 accountsLiterally 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 time3. AST didn't coordinate with NSF wrt Block 24. AST didn't comply with the requirements FCC levied on Starlink Gen2So there is no "complaining about the implications of the S/C sizes", instead the complain is about AST doesn't follow rules and requirements.
Quote from: thespacecow on 08/08/2025 03:44 amFalse, 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:Quote1. "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.
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.
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"
Appears that they are now largely punting on the polar orbits, with a move of all but 2 satellites to 53 degrees
AST SpaceMobile@AST_SpaceMobile·BlueBird 6 is fully assembled, and final tests are being completed imminently to be ready for shipment! 🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀BlueBirds 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are in various stages of production, targeting to complete all phased arrays this month. We are on track to complete 40 phased arrays by early 2026, bringing us to BlueBird 46. Each BlueBird is the largest commercial satellite ever launched to low Earth orbit!This is just the start of our deployment roadmap, with launches every 1-2 months on average moving forward, and 20 satellites approved to launch by the FCC — and more to come. The future of space-based cellular broadband connectivity is around the corner! 🌎📱📶💪
"AST SpaceMobile: How we made BlueBird 6"
BlueBird 6 has completed final assembly and testing and is ready for flight! 🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀 On October 12, it will head to India aboard an Antonov large cargo plane ✈️We are officially kicking off our next-gen launch campaign:• BlueBird 7 is expected to ship to the Cape Canaveral launch site in October• BlueBirds 8-16 are in various stages of production, with launches planned every 1-2 months on average during 2025 and 2026• On track to complete 40 phased arrays by early 2026, bringing us to BlueBird 46• Expecting 45-60 satellites in orbit by year-end 2026We have partnered with 50+ mobile network operators serving nearly 3 billion subscribers, supported by a flexible spectrum strategy blending our own licensed spectrum with partner spectrum. These BlueBirds will be the largest commercial satellites ever deployed in LEO – each featuring a 2,400 sq ft phased array with true direct-to-cell broadband, capable of up to 10,000 MHz of processing bandwidth and peak speeds of 120 Mbps per cell 🌎📶#5G
Article in Ars today: Elon Musk tries to make Apple and mobile carriers regret choosing Starlink rivals
''5 launches by end of March 2026, starting in two weeks on December 15th''
That's an interesting looking Falcon 9
[35:30] We plan to have 45 to 60 satellites in space by year end of 2026, which will enable continuous coverage of the United States.
Quote from: sstli2 on 10/06/2025 12:00 pmArticle in Ars today: Elon Musk tries to make Apple and mobile carriers regret choosing Starlink rivalsGood overview article, but I think the headline is misleading. Based on the article, SpaceX/Musk are not explicitly trying to cause this "regret". They are trying to provide worldwide cellular service in under-served areas, and they are likely to succeed. That's just normal business. Apple and other may in fact regret certain past decisions, but that's a consequence of SpaceX' success, not a result of actions deliberately intended to cause regret.
