Author Topic: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings  (Read 292454 times)

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 178
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 97
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #620 on: 10/09/2023 12:47 am »
SAT-STA-20230929-00239
Quote
Space Exploration Holdings, LLC (“SpaceX”), pursuant to Section 25.120 of the Commission’s rules, hereby requests Special Temporary Authority (“STA”) for sixty (60) days beginning December 1, 2023 to launch and test its non-geostationary orbit (“NGSO”) second generation (“Gen2”) satellites1 with direct-to-cellular communications payloads to connect unmodified cellular phones directly to SpaceX Gen2 satellites, subject to the conditions set forth in the Gen2 Order granting SpaceX authority to launch and operate 7,500 satellites. This STA is necessary as the Commission continues to process SpaceX’s application to enable supplemental coverage from space (“SCS”) for consumers on a permanent basis2 and would permit SpaceX to timely launch its first tranche of direct-to-cellular-enabled satellites in December 2023.

So!!! Exactly.  How many satellites are in a "tranche"? ;) ;)

Online 2megs

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 166
  • Liked: 383
  • Likes Given: 65
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #621 on: 10/15/2023 11:53 am »
https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacex-files-29988-satellite-w-band-network-using-kingdom-of-tonga-as-regulatory-home/

Quote
SpaceX files 29,988-satellite W-band network, using Kingdom of Tonga as regulatory home

written by Peter B. De Selding
October 12, 2023
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — SpaceX has filed advance notice with the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) through Tonga for a constellation of 29,988 satellites in 288 orbital planes at multiple altitudes between 350 and 614 kilometers.

The network, called ESIAFI II, would use W-band frequencies in in both the fixed and mobile satellite service bands.

The filing was registered on Oct. 11 at the ITU and is believed to be the first time that SpaceX has used the Kingdom of Tonga

The filing: https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/DisplayPublication/53068

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39279
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25266
  • Likes Given: 12122
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #622 on: 10/15/2023 02:53 pm »
Does this mean skipping the FCC filing for things like satellite size, mass, etc?

Is there going to be a 6 year time limit for half the constellation and 9 total (3 more years) for the full constellation?

What is the difference between using a “flag of convenience” like this vs the US?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline markbike528cbx

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 162
  • The Everbrown portion of the Evergreen State
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 88
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #623 on: 10/15/2023 03:38 pm »
https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacex-files-29988-satellite-w-band-network-using-kingdom-of-tonga-as-regulatory-home/

Quote
SpaceX files 29,988-satellite W-band network, using Kingdom of Tonga as regulatory home

written by Peter B. De Selding
October 12, 2023
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — SpaceX has filed advance notice with the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) through Tonga for a constellation of 29,988 satellites in 288 orbital planes at multiple altitudes between 350 and 614 kilometers.

The network, called ESIAFI II, would use W-band frequencies in in both the fixed and mobile satellite service bands.

The filing was registered on Oct. 11 at the ITU and is believed to be the first time that SpaceX has used the Kingdom of Tonga

The filing: https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/DisplayPublication/53068

W band frequencies of 120GHz to 160GHz have atmospheric attenuation a factor of 10 higher than Ka band and a factor of one hundred higher than Ku band per ,Recommendation ITU-R P.676-9 (02/2012). Attenuation by atmospheric gases
P Series Radiowave propagation FIGURE 6. Total, dry air and water-vapour zenith attenuation from sea level

Is this for in-space communication?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39279
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25266
  • Likes Given: 12122
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #624 on: 10/15/2023 04:50 pm »
No. It says it’s being used for fixed and mobile service, not between satellites.

It’d be helpful to use hyperlinks (or at least screenshots) to things you’re referring to.
« Last Edit: 10/15/2023 04:53 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline markbike528cbx

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 162
  • The Everbrown portion of the Evergreen State
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 88
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #625 on: 10/15/2023 07:41 pm »
No. It says it’s being used for fixed and mobile service, not between satellites.

It’d be helpful to use hyperlinks (or at least screenshots) to things you’re referring to.
Yep, agree on links or imbed/attach but I was on mobile and didn’t have that capability.

Thank you for the direct answer.   I’m still confused about the frequencies.


Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39279
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25266
  • Likes Given: 12122
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #627 on: 10/15/2023 10:27 pm »
Thanks!
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline OceanCat

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 132
  • Liked: 252
  • Likes Given: 211
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #628 on: 10/17/2023 10:04 am »
The FCC mostly approved the application to replace 7,500 V-band-only satellites with V-band payloads on Gen2 satellites. The deployment milestones remain the same.

Quote
SpaceX must launch 50 percent of the maximum number of proposed space stations with V-band
capabilities, place them in the assigned orbits, and operate them in accordance with this grant no later
than November 19, 2024, and must launch the remaining space stations necessary to complete its
authorized V-band system, place them in their assigned orbits, and operate them in accordance with
the authorization no later than November 19, 2027...
Failure to meet the milestone requirement may result in SpaceX's authorization being reduced to
the number of satellites with V-band capability in use at the milestone date.

The only dismissed part:
Quote
SpaceX’s request to operate in the 42.0-42.5 GHz band is DISMISSED. There is no domestic allocation
for satellite services in this band, SpaceX’s request to operate in this band was dismissed in the original
SpaceX V-band Authorization, and SpaceX has not provided any basis in this modification for us to
authorize operations in this band.

Surprisingly, absolutely no competitors' comments were filed to delay the approval.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39279
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25266
  • Likes Given: 12122
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #629 on: 10/17/2023 12:56 pm »
Why so early for the first half? Have any of these V-band-capable satellites launched, yet? If this is approved just now, and assuming these are the same mass as the V2 minis so they get 22 satellites per launch, that implies they need to launch 3750 satellites in one year, or about 170 Falcon 9 Starlink launches in one year. That’s kind of a really aggressive launch rate, more than double the current Starlink-only Falcon 9 launch rate (and the overall Falcon launch rate is up to 10 per month now).
« Last Edit: 10/17/2023 12:57 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
  • Liked: 2429
  • Likes Given: 10302
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #630 on: 10/17/2023 02:00 pm »
Why so early for the first half? Have any of these V-band-capable satellites launched, yet? If this is approved just now, and assuming these are the same mass as the V2 minis so they get 22 satellites per launch, that implies they need to launch 3750 satellites in one year, or about 170 Falcon 9 Starlink launches in one year. That’s kind of a really aggressive launch rate, more than double the current Starlink-only Falcon 9 launch rate (and the overall Falcon launch rate is up to 10 per month now).

This is quite interesting.  Maybe the FCC is setting up a precedent where they treat Starlink and Kuiper the same.  If they give Starlink a bit of extra time on the v-band, then they will use that as precedent to give Kuiper a bit of time on its first constellation.  SpaceX would probably need an extra two years for the 50 percent rule, even if it is able to keep to the timeline for the 100 percent rule.

In principle, this approach seems reasonable.  The FCC is setting itself up to keep a pretty tight leash on the number of authorized satellites.  I don't think it makes sense to authorize constellations that can't be launched.  On the other hand, if you can launch the satellites on that short timeline, the FCC probably won't stand in your way.
« Last Edit: 10/17/2023 02:09 pm by RedLineTrain »

Offline niwax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1423
  • Germany
    • SpaceX Booster List
  • Liked: 2041
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #631 on: 10/17/2023 02:07 pm »
Why so early for the first half? Have any of these V-band-capable satellites launched, yet? If this is approved just now, and assuming these are the same mass as the V2 minis so they get 22 satellites per launch, that implies they need to launch 3750 satellites in one year, or about 170 Falcon 9 Starlink launches in one year. That’s kind of a really aggressive launch rate, more than double the current Starlink-only Falcon 9 launch rate (and the overall Falcon launch rate is up to 10 per month now).

Considering they folded dedicated V-band sats into V-band payloads instead, could the existing v2 minis have those on already? That would give them a big head start of ~450. It's all just some form of SDR in the end.
Which booster has the most soot? SpaceX booster launch history! (discussion)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39279
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25266
  • Likes Given: 12122
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #632 on: 10/17/2023 02:10 pm »
SDR doesn’t really work for vastly different frequencies though, due to physical limitations of the antenna. It’s more at the back end.

But one year for half the satellites is a MUCH shorter timescale than the FCC has used in the past. It doesn’t really make sense.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3061
  • Liked: 3913
  • Likes Given: 5306
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #633 on: 10/17/2023 03:08 pm »
This is quite interesting.  Maybe the FCC is setting up a precedent where they treat Starlink and Kuiper the same.
If you are suggesting Kuiper is going to get a year to deploy half of whatever follow-on constellation(s) they want to launch, then good luck with that Kuiper.  (Or anyone else, for that matter).

I suppose SpaceX could design smaller V1.x versions with the new payload that they could launch larger batches again, and worry about replacing them over time, but that's really wasteful and unfortunate if they have to do that.

Offline markbike528cbx

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 162
  • The Everbrown portion of the Evergreen State
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 88
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #634 on: 10/17/2023 04:14 pm »
SDR doesn’t really work for vastly different frequencies though, due to physical limitations of the antenna. It’s more at the back end.

But one year for half the satellites is a MUCH shorter timescale than the FCC has used in the past. It doesn’t really make sense.
This a modification of the preexisting v-band grant from 2018 or so.  The time left is from the original grant.  It seemed like a long time back then.
—-scurries off to find the original grant…….

Found https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-161A1.pdf

SpaceX must launch 50 percent of the maximum number of proposed space stations with V-band capabilities, place them in the assigned orbits, and operate them in accordance with this grant no later than November 19, 2024, and must launch the remaining space stations necessary to complete its authorized V-band system, place them in their assigned orbits, and operate them in accordance with … by 2027
« Last Edit: 10/17/2023 04:29 pm by markbike528cbx »

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3061
  • Liked: 3913
  • Likes Given: 5306
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #635 on: 10/17/2023 04:23 pm »
SDR doesn’t really work for vastly different frequencies though, due to physical limitations of the antenna. It’s more at the back end.

But one year for half the satellites is a MUCH shorter timescale than the FCC has used in the past. It doesn’t really make sense.
This a modification of the preexisting v-band grant from 2018 or so.  The time left is from the original grant.  It seemed like a long time back then.
—-scurries off to find the original grant…….
Ah, interesting, that would make some sense.  And not bode well for the suggestion that Kuiper would be able to get an extension on the deadlines for their constellation…

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2852
  • Liked: 1092
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #636 on: 10/18/2023 01:10 am »
SDR doesn’t really work for vastly different frequencies though, due to physical limitations of the antenna. It’s more at the back end.

But one year for half the satellites is a MUCH shorter timescale than the FCC has used in the past. It doesn’t really make sense.

Don't some of the fancier diode/transistor equipped antennas that can change the electrical length sorta do that though? I seem to remember Fractenna offering something like that...

Offline OceanCat

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 132
  • Liked: 252
  • Likes Given: 211
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #637 on: 10/18/2023 08:11 am »
Why so early for the first half? Have any of these V-band-capable satellites launched, yet?

The initial authorization was issued on 11/15/2018. SpaceX was given standard 6 years to deploy 50% and 3 more years to deploy the rest. A modification does not change the deployment milestones. SpaceX will have to apply for an extension.

I have not seen any public information if any of group 5, 6, or 7 satellites are V-band-capable. But I would be surprised if SpaceX was waiting for the modification approval and only now will equip group 6 and 7 satellites with V-band payload. They should have anticipated that the modification is not controversial and designed v2-minis with a simple V-band payload off the start. Another possibility that they plan to add V-band only to the large v2s looked too risky at the time of the modification filing (March 2023) in my opinion. The FCC does leave room for R&D uncertainty but if SpaceX asks for an extension after a few or maybe even zero launches of v2s they really risk their license be trimmed.
« Last Edit: 10/18/2023 08:50 am by OceanCat »

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
  • Liked: 2429
  • Likes Given: 10302
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #638 on: 10/18/2023 03:23 pm »
This is quite interesting.  Maybe the FCC is setting up a precedent where they treat Starlink and Kuiper the same.
If you are suggesting Kuiper is going to get a year to deploy half of whatever follow-on constellation(s) they want to launch, then good luck with that Kuiper.  (Or anyone else, for that matter).

No, my suggestion was that Kuiper will get an extra couple of years to hit its interim milestones for its first constellation. I think the risk is very low that the FCC will trim the size of Kuiper's first constellation, assuming that Kuiper is making good progress on its deployment.

With this order, Starlink needs to ask for an extension of time on the V-band interim milestones before Kuiper needs to ask for an extension of time on interim milestones for its first constellation.  So Starlink will set the precedent.

I can't imagine that the FCC would trim the size of Starlink V-band constellation and then turn around and grant the extension to Kuiper.  What would be the basis for doing so?

In any event, it just seems like the FCC should have no interest in trimming the size of the Starlink V-band constellation because the result would be no fewer satellites overall.  After all, the V-band is virgin territory for constellations and there was a big cross-agency effort a few years ago to regulate its use by constellations.
« Last Edit: 10/18/2023 03:43 pm by RedLineTrain »

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3061
  • Liked: 3913
  • Likes Given: 5306
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #639 on: 10/18/2023 03:58 pm »
This is quite interesting.  Maybe the FCC is setting up a precedent where they treat Starlink and Kuiper the same.
If you are suggesting Kuiper is going to get a year to deploy half of whatever follow-on constellation(s) they want to launch, then good luck with that Kuiper.  (Or anyone else, for that matter).

No, my suggestion was that Kuiper will get an extra couple of years to hit its interim milestones for its first constellation. I think the risk is very low that the FCC will trim the size of Kuiper's first constellation, assuming that Kuiper is making good progress on its deployment.

With this order, Starlink needs to ask for an extension of time on the V-band interim milestones before Kuiper needs to ask for an extension of time on interim milestones for its first constellation.  So Starlink will set the precedent.

I can't imagine that the FCC would trim the size of Starlink V-band constellation and then turn around and grant the extension to Kuiper.  What would be the basis for doing so?

In any event, it just seems like the FCC should have no interest in trimming the size of the Starlink V-band constellation because the result would be no fewer satellites overall.  After all, the V-band is virgin territory for constellations and there was a big cross-agency effort a few years ago to regulate its use by constellations.
I understand where you're coming from and it kinda makes sense.  On the other hand, it penalizes a company that has been successful and that seems wrong.  Perhaps the FCC should treat any first constellation extension request i.e. SpaceX shouldn't be "penalized" because they haven't needed an extension for Starlink.

Tags:
 

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