Author Topic: Boeing Smallsat Constellation  (Read 18452 times)

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3492
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1894
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #40 on: 12/09/2017 09:33 PM »
This sounds a lot like the agreement that OneWeb has with Airbus Defense and Space to build and launch the sats while OneWeb then operates them.

Boeing would be the builder/launch agent but not the operator.

In both cases as long as the constellation is making money the builders would see a constant income form building sats.

At some point the two would be operated by a single entity even though there are two sat manufactures for the two different sats.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3872
  • US
  • Liked: 3249
  • Likes Given: 1898
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #41 on: 01/02/2018 02:38 AM »
I hadn't noticed that Boeing filed amendments to transfer two of their proposed constellations to Greg Wyler.  One was shown above, and here is the other:

SAT-AMD-20171206-00168 (for original filing SAT-LOA-20161115-00109, a 60 satellite Ka band constellation)

SpaceX and O3B/SES have filed papers registering themselves as interested parties in these proceedings.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6238
  • Liked: 4068
  • Likes Given: 5580
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #42 on: 01/03/2018 01:53 PM »
I hadn't noticed that Boeing filed amendments to transfer two of their proposed constellations to Greg Wyler.  One was shown above, and here is the other:

SAT-AMD-20171206-00168 (for original filing SAT-LOA-20161115-00109, a 60 satellite Ka band constellation)

SpaceX and O3B/SES have filed papers registering themselves as interested parties in these proceedings.

Would it make sense to have multiple different satellite vendors/configurations in an integrated constellation?  Is this the intent, or is the licensing of the spectrum only on the table, and OneWeb would be able to fill it with whatever sats it chose (or would Boeing still be the satellite designer/builder and possibly launcher)?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3872
  • US
  • Liked: 3249
  • Likes Given: 1898
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #43 on: 01/03/2018 02:01 PM »
I hadn't noticed that Boeing filed amendments to transfer two of their proposed constellations to Greg Wyler.  One was shown above, and here is the other:

SAT-AMD-20171206-00168 (for original filing SAT-LOA-20161115-00109, a 60 satellite Ka band constellation)

SpaceX and O3B/SES have filed papers registering themselves as interested parties in these proceedings.

Would it make sense to have multiple different satellite vendors/configurations in an integrated constellation?  Is this the intent, or is the licensing of the spectrum only on the table, and OneWeb would be able to fill it with whatever sats it chose (or would Boeing still be the satellite designer/builder and possibly launcher)?

Another document filed by Boeing/Wyler went to great lengths pointing out this transfer is not to OneWeb.  Personally I'd guess that Wyler would eventually transfer the ownership to OneWeb when they got to a point in the process where the rules would permit it.  It doesn't seem even remotely reasonable that Wyler would use these outside of OneWeb.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3872
  • US
  • Liked: 3249
  • Likes Given: 1898
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #44 on: 02/23/2018 04:42 PM »
Eric Berger wrote an article about these strange proposed transfers.

[Ars Technica] There’s something strange going on amid the satellite Internet rush

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3872
  • US
  • Liked: 3249
  • Likes Given: 1898
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #45 on: 07/30/2018 06:02 PM »
Quote
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF AMENDMENTS

The Boeing Company and SOM1101, LLC (the “Parties”), by their undersigned counsel,
hereby withdraw the: (1) Amendment of the Boeing Company, File No. SAT-AMD-20171206-
00167 to File No. SAT-LOA-20160622-00058, Call Sign S2966; and (2) Amendment of the
Boeing Company, File No. SAT-ADM-20171206-00168 to File No. SAT-LOA-20161115-
00109, Call Sign S2977 (together, the “Amendments”) in the above caption and all pleadings and
correspondence filed in support thereof. The Parties no longer wish to pursue the Amendments.

Offline Ragmar

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • Space is the Place
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #46 on: 08/01/2018 06:30 PM »
Are these the amendments that proposed transferring some of the rights to Greg Wyler?

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3872
  • US
  • Liked: 3249
  • Likes Given: 1898
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #47 on: 08/01/2018 06:33 PM »
Are these the amendments that proposed transferring some of the rights to Greg Wyler?

Yes.

Offline Ragmar

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • Space is the Place
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #48 on: 08/02/2018 07:38 PM »
So Boeing is now not transferring anything to Greg Wyler?  That's crazy news if true; surprised it hasn't been reported on yet.

Offline DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • Liked: 111
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #49 on: 08/02/2018 08:56 PM »
I wonder did the talks fall apart or does Boeing now have plans to build and launch a constellation?  What are the deadlines for action?

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3872
  • US
  • Liked: 3249
  • Likes Given: 1898
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #50 on: 10/25/2018 06:49 PM »
Quote
July 31, 2018

Jose Albuquerque, Chief
International Bureau, Satellite Division
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20554

Re: The Boeing Company
IBFS File Nos. SAT-LOA-20161115-00109 (call sign S2977);
SAT-LOA-20160622-00058 and SAT-AMD-20170301-00030 (call sign S2966);
SAT-LOA-20170301-00028, SAT-AMD-20170929-00137 and
SAT-AMD-20180131-00013 (call sign S2993)

Dear Mr. Albuquerque:

The Boeing Company, through its attorneys, hereby withdraws two of its applications for
authority to launch and operate non-geostationary satellite orbit (“NGSO”) fixed satellite service
(“FSS”) systems operating in the Ka-band, IBFS File Number SAT-LOA-20161115-00109 (call
sign S2977), and in the V-band, IBFS File Numbers SAT-LOA-20160622-00058 and SAT-AMD20170301-00030
(call sign S2966).

Boeing continues to seek authority for its third NGSO FSS system, IBFS File Numbers
SAT-LOA-20170301-00028, SAT-AMD-20170929-00137 and SAT-AMD-20180131-00013
(call sign S2993). Boeing expects to file an amendment to make certain changes to its remaining
system. Even as amended, the S2993 constellation would continue to include substantially fewer
satellites than Boeing’s withdrawn V-band NGSO FSS system and therefore would overall reduce
the number of frequency conflicts resulting from Boeing’s V-band presence in relation to other Vband
NGSO FSS systems.

Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions about this matter.

Sincerely,
Bruce A. Olcott
Counsel to The Boeing Company

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3872
  • US
  • Liked: 3249
  • Likes Given: 1898
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #51 on: 10/25/2018 07:05 PM »
The remaining application is for a combined LEO (132 satellites, 1000km elevation, 54 degree inclination) and high-orbit-sorta-like-inclined-GEO (15 satellites, 63 degree inclination, 27000 x 44000km elevation) set of satellites with V-band up and down, V-band and Ka-band inter-satellite links.  They said they plan to amend it so who knows what that will end up looking like.

Tags: