Author Topic: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink  (Read 9729 times)

Offline lukelol

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« on: 11/08/2018 10:00 pm »
Filing: https://fcc.report/IBFS/SAT-MOD-20181108-00083
Link on FCC site

This includes some really great attachments describing Starlink and their recent changes with this filing:

Attachment Frequency Bands Requ - list of planned operating frequencies

Attachment Waiver Requests - Request for fcc to grant the changes

Attachment Organizational Info -Details on Owners/Directors/Offers of Space Exploration Holdings, LLC

Attachment Legal Narrative
   -Legal narrative detailing 3 main points:
    -Lower Orbit
    -No change in spectral interference.
    -Faster Development

Attachment Technical Informatio -
   -relocate 1,584 satellites previously authorized to operate at an altitude of 1,150 km to an altitude of 550 km
   -details of plan to avoid space junk, avoid wireless interference
   -
 -benefits of the lower orbit:
   -Rapid, passive disposal in the unlikely event of a failed spacecraft
   -Self-cleaning debris environment in general
   -Reduced fuel requirements and thruster wear
   -Benign ionizing radiation environment
   -Fewer NGSO operators affected by the SpaceX constellation
   -84 total pages of spacex/starlink info

Attachment Sched S Tech Report - 64 Pages documenting 116 Satellites in 2 non-geostationary orbits [66 @ 53.0 degrees, 550 km altitude and 50 @ 53.8 degrees, 1110 km altitude]

Attachment technical_parameters - Microsoft Database File Containing Info on Individual Satellites,
   - zip of the same data in CSV format http://rehmann.co/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/fcc-starlink-result.zip

Attachment README - Description of technical parameters file

Feel free to add anything I missed!
« Last Edit: 11/09/2018 12:03 am by gongora »

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 839
  • Liked: 531
  • Likes Given: 731
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #1 on: 11/08/2018 10:27 pm »
Nice find.  Musk now owns 50.5% of the company, down from ~54% two years ago.

Offline biosehnsucht

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 322
  • Liked: 113
  • Likes Given: 258
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #2 on: 11/08/2018 10:50 pm »
So in terms of the original plan of LEO and VLEO, is this splitting the LEO portion into LEO and something sort of VLEO but not as low as the original VLEO plans ? At least, it looks like they're still listing some for the old altitude ... ?

If they have to get half the satellites launched, can they then launch just these 550km~ satellites, which would be easier (more payload margins for F9 or whatever they're using, and/or more mass budget for the earlier satellites) ?

I see a bunch of "beams" listed, with variations of steerable and shapable, steerable, and fixed - looks like fixed are all for TT&C. While receiving fixed beams seems sensible, does sending fixed beams mean the TT&C links are using a dedicated antenna/dish? Or just that they'll not steer it at all when using the phased array for TT&C?

Looks like every channel is given 50MHz, even TT&C.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3213
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1663
  • Likes Given: 1973
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #3 on: 11/08/2018 11:10 pm »
"In an extreme worst case scenario, where the satellite fails... solar activity at a minimum... longest decay time is 5 years, with it more likely to be 1-3 years" (P6, waiver requests).
Further to the above noted 50% ownership, "Musk...and has voting control of 78.7%" (Ownership - P1)

"In fact, SpaceX intends to launch the first batch of satellites to begin populating the orbital shell before the end of 2019" (P8 Legal)
"By operating closer to earth, SpaceX would also reduce the latency of its communication signals to as low as 15ms"(P14
Simplified Ku band only satellites first (P16)
"Fewer satellites in view, due to the lower altitude", "Lower radiated power of satellites and ground terminals" (P17)
"Importantly, earliest generations will still use advanced beamforming..."(P18)


"Two configurations of the satellite will be deployed" - P46

Comparing the DCA table on page 46 with the prior one, the maximum number of silicon carbide LASER dishes has dropped from 5 to 4.
« Last Edit: 11/08/2018 11:22 pm by speedevil »

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4301
  • US
  • Liked: 3831
  • Likes Given: 2188
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #4 on: 11/08/2018 11:35 pm »

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 839
  • Liked: 531
  • Likes Given: 731
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #5 on: 11/08/2018 11:38 pm »
So no inter-satellite links on the first version of the satellites -- doing the same as OneWeb.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3213
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1663
  • Likes Given: 1973
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #6 on: 11/08/2018 11:50 pm »
So no inter-satellite links on the first version of the satellites -- doing the same as OneWeb.

This is unclear.
They say they may swap out components, and there is a maximum of 4 mirrors to do LASER comms.
Going to 5 for the later version does not mean that this version is not doing inter-satellite LASER comms, or most of the initial fleet will have none.

It clearly means the mix has changed.
And of course, inter-satellite radio is still possible.
« Last Edit: 11/09/2018 12:05 am by speedevil »

Offline Mark K

  • Member
  • Posts: 63
  • Wisconsin
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #7 on: 11/08/2018 11:51 pm »
So no inter-satellite links on the first version of the satellites -- doing the same as OneWeb.

How do you get that? It says what band the inter satellite links are in the documents shown above?

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4301
  • US
  • Liked: 3831
  • Likes Given: 2188
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #8 on: 11/08/2018 11:59 pm »

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 839
  • Liked: 531
  • Likes Given: 731
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #9 on: 11/09/2018 12:09 am »
So no inter-satellite links on the first version of the satellites -- doing the same as OneWeb.

This is unclear.
They say they may swap out components, and there is a maximum of 4 mirrors to do LASER comms.
Going to 5 for the later version does not mean that this version is not doing inter-satellite LASER comms, or most of the initial fleet will have none.

It clearly means the mix has changed.
And of course, inter-satellite radio is still possible.

I agree that inter-satellite radio is possible.  Good point.  Are Microsat A & B using radio links?  Regarding the LASERs, read on and it becomes clear that not all three components are going to be on the first version.  The reaction wheels and thruster are going to be there, meaning that the silicon carbide (LASER) components are not.

Edit:  Tintin A and B have optical links.  Hmmm...

https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=185534&x=.
« Last Edit: 11/09/2018 12:14 am by RedLineTrain »

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4301
  • US
  • Liked: 3831
  • Likes Given: 2188
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #10 on: 11/09/2018 12:14 am »
I agree that inter-satellite radio is possible.  Good point.  Are Microsat A & B using radio links?  Regarding the LASERs, read on and it becomes clear that not all three components are going to be on the first version.  The reaction wheels and thruster are going to be there, meaning that the silicon carbide (LASER) components are not.

If they had changed from laser ISL then the frequencies would have been listed (and it would be a major revision to their application).

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1213
  • Liked: 619
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #11 on: 11/09/2018 12:23 am »
I agree that inter-satellite radio is possible.  Good point.  Are Microsat A & B using radio links?  Regarding the LASERs, read on and it becomes clear that not all three components are going to be on the first version.  The reaction wheels and thruster are going to be there, meaning that the silicon carbide (LASER) components are not.

If they had changed from laser ISL then the frequencies would have been listed (and it would be a major revision to their application).

Where does it say or imply they’re dropping laser ISL?

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4301
  • US
  • Liked: 3831
  • Likes Given: 2188
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #12 on: 11/09/2018 12:29 am »
Where does it say or imply they’re dropping laser ISL?

Not dropping long term, but maybe not including in the first generation satellites.  The silicon carbide bits mentioned in the reentry debris assessment are assumed to be part of the laser terminals.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4301
  • US
  • Liked: 3831
  • Likes Given: 2188
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #13 on: 11/09/2018 12:30 am »
Edit:  Tintin A and B have optical links.  Hmmm...

https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=185534&x=.

I've never seen it verified that they actually launched with them (or that they're working if they were included.)

Offline Cheapchips

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 346
  • UK
  • Liked: 198
  • Likes Given: 356
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #14 on: 11/09/2018 12:56 pm »

This presumably explains why the Tintins haven't increase their altitude as originally planned. 

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1213
  • Liked: 619
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #15 on: 11/10/2018 05:23 am »
If the laser links aren’t there, Mark Handley’s analysis doesn’t apply anymore, at least for the early version. If they are there, cutting the altitude in half would drop latency even further below the best fiber can even theoretically do and double down on the high frequency trading/financial data biz as a license to print money.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36552.2340
« Last Edit: 11/10/2018 05:33 am by Ludus »

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3213
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1663
  • Likes Given: 1973
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #16 on: 11/10/2018 02:38 pm »
If the laser links aren’t there, Mark Handley’s analysis doesn’t apply anymore, at least for the early version. If they are there, cutting the altitude in half would drop latency even further below the best fiber can even theoretically do and double down on the high frequency trading/financial data biz as a license to print money.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36552.2340
'theoretical' is not meaningful if it assumes that the limit is the speed of light in glass, because 'air-core' fibers exist, which have nearly the same transmission speed as in vacuum.

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1213
  • Liked: 619
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #17 on: 11/10/2018 03:26 pm »
If the laser links aren’t there, Mark Handley’s analysis doesn’t apply anymore, at least for the early version. If they are there, cutting the altitude in half would drop latency even further below the best fiber can even theoretically do and double down on the high frequency trading/financial data biz as a license to print money.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36552.2340
'theoretical' is not meaningful if it assumes that the limit is the speed of light in glass, because 'air-core' fibers exist, which have nearly the same transmission speed as in vacuum.

I think Handley is just considering routes for fiber, not future variations in the basic technology. Theoretical in this case just meaning that even with a direct optimal “great circle” connection, though significantly faster than current fiber routes, wouldn’t be as fast as quite a few potential paths on Starlink.

He didn’t consider advances in fiber or the later lower orbit and denser mesh phases of Starlink.

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #18 on: 11/11/2018 07:30 am »
If the laser links aren’t there, Mark Handley’s analysis doesn’t apply anymore, at least for the early version. If they are there, cutting the altitude in half would drop latency even further below the best fiber can even theoretically do and double down on the high frequency trading/financial data biz as a license to print money.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36552.2340
'theoretical' is not meaningful if it assumes that the limit is the speed of light in glass, because 'air-core' fibers exist, which have nearly the same transmission speed as in vacuum.

I think Handley is just considering routes for fiber, not future variations in the basic technology. Theoretical in this case just meaning that even with a direct optimal “great circle” connection, though significantly faster than current fiber routes, wouldn’t be as fast as quite a few potential paths on Starlink.

He didn’t consider advances in fiber or the later lower orbit and denser mesh phases of Starlink.

“Advances in fiber” won’t affect Handley’s analysis WRT great circle minimums, because he is only considering the physical speed of light in glass vs speed of links in air/vacuum.

Altitude and circuit latency on the satellites will have greater impact than any future improvements in fiber.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3213
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1663
  • Likes Given: 1973
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #19 on: 11/11/2018 11:16 am »
“Advances in fiber” won’t affect Handley’s analysis WRT great circle minimums, because he is only considering the physical speed of light in glass vs speed of links in air/vacuum.

Altitude and circuit latency on the satellites will have greater impact than any future improvements in fiber.
Hollow glass fiber exists, with the signal propagating in the hollow.
One variant described here.
It is very expensive, ridiculously so compared to fiber at current and has high loss.
(1.7dB/km was the best figure I saw).

This gets around the speed of glass argument, at least in principle, if the above were to be commercialised for long distance links.
Considerable technical challenges remain in practically achieving signal speed of the speed of light, even if your fiber goes that fast.
Losses would need to be greatly reduced to make the number of repeaters tractable for long distance links, even with optical amplifiers the signal is going to be regenerated quite often non-optically compared to current fiber, so achieving that delay is problematic.
« Last Edit: 11/11/2018 11:24 am by speedevil »

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2395
  • California
  • Liked: 1933
  • Likes Given: 4875
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #20 on: 11/11/2018 04:35 pm »
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg1874328#msg1874328

gongora, I appreciate that you're sharing highlights and that you're linking to direct source info, but I don't think it's actually an appropriate use of screen captures.  Using screen caps instead of copy/pasting the text means that the included text isn't searchable.  So, for instance, if someone in the future was trying to find something they only vaguely remembered from one of those posts and using the site search function, they're going to be SOL.  It's a bit more work, but please copy/paste future text quotes.  Of course, for included images, diagrams, and charts, screen cap away.
« Last Edit: 11/11/2018 04:35 pm by deruch »
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4301
  • US
  • Liked: 3831
  • Likes Given: 2188
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #21 on: 11/11/2018 05:10 pm »
On some pages I couldn't select the text from the pdf file, so I just ended up doing all of them the same way.

Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #22 on: 11/15/2018 04:14 pm »
Text from: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg1874328#msg1874328

Moreover, as its own launch provider, SpaceX is fully integrating its satellite design with the launch vehicle - the groundbreaking Falcon 9 rocket. This integration allows SpaceX to optimize the satellites' specifications to the capacity and thrust available with Falcon 9 to plan for highly efficient launches that maximize the speed of deployment.

---

SpaceX learned how to initiate the move towards mass production by beginning with a single-band antenna using Ku-band spectrum and how to operate a portion of the system at a lower orbital altitude to capture a variety of operational and service-related benefits described below. Now, SpaceX is poised to build upon the lessons learned from these satellites to advance into the next stage in development.

---

By operating closer to the Earth, SpaceX would also reduce the latency of its communications signals to as low as 15 milliseconds, at which point it would be virtually unnoticeable to almost all users.(9) In addition, operating at lower altitude reduces the degree to which satellite beams will spread before they reach the Earth. As discussed in the technical analysis, SpaceX‘s ability to use even tighter beams will achieve more efficient re-use of spectrum
resources.

Despite these well-known advantages, this altitude does pose significant trade-offs, which may be why most other NGSO providers choose to operate at higher orbits.

(9) By contrast, SpaceX expected to target latency of approximately 25-35 ms from the 1,150 km altitude

---

I have a program that pulls text from images.  Hope this was helpful. :)
« Last Edit: 11/15/2018 04:20 pm by Nehkara »

Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #23 on: 11/15/2018 04:40 pm »
Text from: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg1874320#msg1874320

In the initial phase, SpaceX will launch and operate first-generation satellites that it has designed specifically to support a faster pace of deployment with a simplified design to streamline the construction process and continuously add features to subsequent generations of spacecraft. For example, SpaceX initially will use Ku-band spectrum for communications between satellites and both gateways and user terminals, and then incorporate dual Ku/Ka-band chipsets and other supporting technologies to phase in the use of Ka-band spectrum for gateway communications as it populates its constellation. Similarly, SpaceX initially will use parabolic antennas for its gateway earth stations, and introduce phased array alternatives as the system evolves. The frequency usage during these two phases is
summarized in Table A.2-2 below.

---

Operating this shell at lower altitude will significantly decrease each satellite's footprint on the Earth. To maintain suitable coverage during the very early stages of initial deployment, SpaceX may periodically use a minimum elevation angle as low as 25 degrees for this initial shell. Then, as further satellites are deployed to populate the remainder of the constellation, SpaceX will revert to a 40 degree minimum elevation angle for all user and gateway beams.

---

In its Original Applications, SpaceX planned to transition its satellites from approximately 400 km to the 1,150 km orbital shell. For its proposed operations at 550 km, SpaceX expects the insertion altitude for the modified 1,584 satellites generally to be 300-350 km, depending on solar activity. Even with this slightly lowered insertion altitude, the total orbit raise required to reach operating altitude is dramatically less than for the 1,150 km destination of the original shell. Correspondingly, this altitude requires less fuel for orbit raising and leaves more propellant to maintain orbit once the satellite arrives at its new maximum altitude. In fact, even though the thrust to overcome ongoing atmospheric drag at 550 km is significantly higher than at 1,150 km, SpaceX has been able to decrease the overall work required by the Hall-effect electric propulsion system by at least 50% with respect to the original design.

---

Second, by far the biggest change is the addition of steel reaction wheels, which were not a potential source of human casualty risk in the prior analysis. SpaceX plans to deploy two versions of its initial satellites with slightly different configurations and each will only carry a subset of the components identified above. (34)

(34) The first version includes the iron thruster and steel reaction wheels, whereas later iterations will add a silicon carbide component, while replacing the wheels with a fully demisable alternative. Even a worst-case configuration that includes all three components (a configuration that SpaceX does not intend to deploy) yields a risk of 1:10,700, which still meets the NASA requirement.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4301
  • US
  • Liked: 3831
  • Likes Given: 2188
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #24 on: 11/23/2018 09:06 pm »
This is just a summary of Starlink information to get it all in one place...

NSF Threads for Starlink:
SpaceX FCC filing for a 4425 satellite constellation providing Internet service (original thread for discussion of the FCC filings)
SpaceX - now a satellite manufacturer (Starlink) (general Starlink discussion)
SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink (use this thread going forward for discussion specifically related to the FCC filings)

SAT-LOA-20161115-00118
SAT-LOA-20170301-00027
These are the Starlink Ku/Ka-band filings.  Approved March 29, 2018

SAT-LOA-20170726-00110
This is the Starlink V-band filing.  It has 7000 additional satellites in a VLEO constellation and adds V-band frequencies to the original 4425 satellite Ku/Ka-band constellation.  Adopted November 15, 2018 (document released November 19, 2018.)

SAT-MOD-20181108-00083
This modification would allow the initial deployment (~1600 sats) of the Ku/Ka-band constellation to be deployed in a lower orbit.  The filing has not been officially accepted/posted for public notice yet as of Nov. 23, 2018.  Once the notice of the filing is posted it will kick off a (30 day?) time period for comments/oppositions to the filing, followed by more time periods for rounds of responses.  Don't expect any resolution on this before mid-2019.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4301
  • US
  • Liked: 3831
  • Likes Given: 2188
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #25 on: 12/15/2018 10:26 pm »
Accepted for filing, now the comment periods can start.

Quote
SAT-MOD-20181108-00083 E S2983/3018
Modification
Date Filed: 11/08/2018 11:22:07:27300
Space Exploration Holdings, LLC

Space Exploration Holding, LLC (SpaceX) requests modification of the authorization for its previously authorized 4,425 non-geostationary orbit satellite constellation using Ku- and Ka-band spectrum (IBFS File Nos. SAT-LOA-20161115-00118 and SAT-LOA-20170726-00110). Specifically, SpaceX to seeks to: (1) reduce the number of satellites in the constellation from 4,425 to 4,409; (2) relocate 1,584 satellites authorized to operate at an altitude of 1,150 km to an altitude of 550 km; and (3) make related changes to the operations of the satellites in this new lower shell of the constellation. SpaceX also addresses three conditions included in its existing authorization related to orbital debris mitigation, compliance with applicable limits on equivalent power flux-density, and protection of fixed services in the Ka-band. SpaceX requests waivers, to the extent necessary, of Sections 25.157(c) and 25.146(a) of the Commission's rules, as well as of various limitations in the Commission's Schedule S software, in connection with this request.
« Last Edit: 12/15/2018 11:11 pm by gongora »

Offline mgeagon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Hong Kong
  • Liked: 103
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #26 on: 12/16/2018 06:32 am »
Accepted for filing, now the comment periods can start.

Quote
SAT-MOD-20181108-00083 E S2983/3018
Modification
Date Filed: 11/08/2018 11:22:07:27300
Space Exploration Holdings, LLC

Space Exploration Holding, LLC (SpaceX) requests modification of the authorization for its previously authorized 4,425 non-geostationary orbit satellite constellation using Ku- and Ka-band spectrum (IBFS File Nos. SAT-LOA-20161115-00118 and SAT-LOA-20170726-00110). Specifically, SpaceX to seeks to: (1) reduce the number of satellites in the constellation from 4,425 to 4,409; (2) relocate 1,584 satellites authorized to operate at an altitude of 1,150 km to an altitude of 550 km; and (3) make related changes to the operations of the satellites in this new lower shell of the constellation. SpaceX also addresses three conditions included in its existing authorization related to orbital debris mitigation, compliance with applicable limits on equivalent power flux-density, and protection of fixed services in the Ka-band. SpaceX requests waivers, to the extent necessary, of Sections 25.157(c) and 25.146(a) of the Commission's rules, as well as of various limitations in the Commission's Schedule S software, in connection with this request.
This modification would allow the initial deployment (~1600 sats) of the Ku/Ka-band constellation to be deployed in a lower orbit.  The filing has not been officially accepted/posted for public notice yet as of Nov. 23, 2018.  Once the notice of the filing is posted it will kick off a (30 day?) time period for comments/oppositions to the filing, followed by more time periods for rounds of responses.  Don't expect any resolution on this before mid-2019.
If the satellites were ready to launch before final approval, there is nothing preventing SpaceX from putting them into the 550 km orbit, correct? Worst case is the satellites couldn't be turned on for commercial use until approval was secured. AIUI, the company would be free to do all the testing it would like, as long as it simply files a temporary bandwidth request, just like it did for Tintin and all other vehicles. Do I understand this correctly?

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3567
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1993
  • Likes Given: 239
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #27 on: 12/16/2018 08:46 pm »
30 day period ends 15 Jan. Now give FCC up to 5 months to consider the mod and that puts it May. Even if the mod is not approved, SpaceX is likely to have 3 months before the earliest launch date possible Aug 2019 to then redo the orbit and launch trajectory plans/calcs.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4301
  • US
  • Liked: 3831
  • Likes Given: 2188
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #28 on: 12/16/2018 09:06 pm »
30 day period ends 15 Jan. Now give FCC up to 5 months to consider the mod and that puts it May. Even if the mod is not approved, SpaceX is likely to have 3 months before the earliest launch date possible Aug 2019 to then redo the orbit and launch trajectory plans/calcs.

There is more than one round of comments and replies, and there isn't really a maximum time for it to take.  OneWeb's modification is at about 9 months now and hasn't received a ruling.

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 839
  • Liked: 531
  • Likes Given: 731
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #29 on: 12/16/2018 09:24 pm »
And I still think that the ITU hasn't fully reviewed and approved the original constellation, this modified constellation, or the VLEO constellation.  SpaceX is asking the FCC for a waiver to launch until the ITU finishes the review, but the FCC has declined to grant such a waiver yet.

Disclaimer:  I do not know much about how ITU regulations work.
« Last Edit: 12/16/2018 09:25 pm by RedLineTrain »

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Liked: 1831
  • Likes Given: 422
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #30 on: 12/16/2018 09:59 pm »
If the satellites were ready to launch before final approval, there is nothing preventing SpaceX from putting them into the 550 km orbit, correct? Worst case is the satellites couldn't be turned on for commercial use until approval was secured. AIUI, the company would be free to do all the testing it would like, as long as it simply files a temporary bandwidth request, just like it did for Tintin and all other vehicles. Do I understand this correctly?
I don't think so, FCC approvals are required for any communication with a satellite, not just commercial use. Just launching a satellite at all requires approval first. The FCC has ended up as the body that regulates things like orbital debris and some other hazards, just out of convenience, since someone has to be the regulatory gatekeeper. This means that just launching them to a different orbit than originally planned without approvals first could get you in trouble.

Submitting a redundant but limited application shortly before launch to allow the launch to take place is just one more approval you are going to have to wait for and is going to end up just slowing things down for you overall anyway.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2395
  • California
  • Liked: 1933
  • Likes Given: 4875
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #31 on: 12/18/2018 03:33 pm »
If the satellites were ready to launch before final approval, there is nothing preventing SpaceX from putting them into the 550 km orbit, correct? Worst case is the satellites couldn't be turned on for commercial use until approval was secured. AIUI, the company would be free to do all the testing it would like, as long as it simply files a temporary bandwidth request, just like it did for Tintin and all other vehicles. Do I understand this correctly?

No.  They need bandwidth access for all communications with the satellites.  This includes any commanding or even satellite status signals.  I don't believe it would be an appropriate use of the FCC's Special Temporary Authority granting mechanism (or of their shorter-term licensing mechanism) to cover communications with the constellation regardless of whether it was in commercial operation or not.  Nor do I believe that the FCC would ever agree to grant/license bandwidth to such a constellation on those terms. 
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4301
  • US
  • Liked: 3831
  • Likes Given: 2188
Re: SpaceX New FCC Filings for Starlink
« Reply #32 on: 01/30/2019 12:40 am »
The first round of comments/oppositions is coming in (I think they were due to be filed today.)  So far we've got Kepler, Astro Digital, Planet, Spire, and the Commercial Smallsat Spectrum Management Association complaining that SpaceX decided to move their constellation to an area where all of the cubesat constellations are to be found, and potentially increase interference in Ku-band since SpaceX wants to initially switch their gateways from Ka to Ku.

FCC Filings related to the SpaceX Modification

Tags: