I mean this is key point://2. Section 25.159 of the Commission’s rules states that applicants for one licensed-but-unbuilt NGSO-like satellite system in a particular frequency band will not be permitted to apply for another NGSO-like satellite system in that frequency band. SpaceX requests frequencies in its Gen2 system application that are the same as frequencies authorized for its first generation system. Please address the applicability of section 25.159, particularly with respect to those frequencies requested in this Gen2 application that overlap with those authorized in the first generation system, given that SpaceX has not yet completed deploying its first generation system, or reached the minimum 50% required by milestone rules. Please address the cadence of launches going forward with respect to the currently authorized system.And this not good for StarLink - first Generation is not complete for 50% (or 2204 sats on 550 km ) ..
It appears that on December 23, the FCC accepted the filing of SpaceX's Gen2 amendment. In addition, the FCC asked several questions.QuoteDear Mr. Wiltshire:On May 26, 2020, Space Exploration Holdings, LLC (SpaceX) submitted the above-referenced application for authority to construct, deploy, and operate a constellation in a configuration consisting of approximately 30,000 non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) satellites operating in low-earth orbit (LEO).SpaceX amended this application on August 18, 2021. To assist the Satellite Division’s review of the application, as amended, please provide the information requested below.1. SpaceX describes this satellite system as its “next-generation Gen2 System” and states that its Gen2 system is meant to complement its first generation system.4 Please clarify the relationship between SpaceX’s first generation satellite system and the Gen2 system SpaceX proposes in this application and amendment. Does SpaceX plan to operate both systems simultaneously? Will SpaceX deploy replacement satellites for the first generation system in addition to deploying satellites in this Gen2 system, or will the Gen2 satellites be deployed in lieu of first generation system replacement satellites? Will a customer user terminal be able to access satellites from either system, or will there be separate customer user terminals for each system?2. Section 25.159 of the Commission’s rules states that applicants for one licensed-but-unbuilt NGSO-like satellite system in a particular frequency band will not be permitted to apply for another NGSO-like satellite system in that frequency band. SpaceX requests frequencies in its Gen2 system application that are the same as frequencies authorized for its first generation system. Please address the applicability of section 25.159, particularly with respect to those frequencies requested in this Gen2 application that overlap with those authorized in the first generation system, given that SpaceX has not yet completed deploying its first generation system, or reached the minimum 50% required by milestone rules. Please address the cadence of launches going forward with respect to the currently authorized system.3. SpaceX states that it will generally observe a minimum elevation angle as low as 25 degrees, although certain shells may use lower elevations in certain circumstances. In its original application, SpaceX states that satellites in the high inclination shells operating at altitudes of 360 km and 373 km will observe a minimum elevation angle of five degrees for gateways located inside the Polar Regions. Given the amended orbital parameters, please indicate for each alternative orbital configuration which satellites would observe a minimum elevation angle below 25 degrees.4. Please provide additional detail regarding SpaceX’s launch plans for the Gen2 system. Specifically, for each of the alternative orbital configurations described in SpaceX’s application, what is the anticipated order for launching into the various altitudes and orbital planes? Does SpaceX have any updates regarding the expected timing of launches for the Gen2 system, and does SpaceX have an estimated timeline in which it would plan to notify the Commission concerning which of the two configurations it plans to deploy?5. In the amended legal narrative and technical attachment, SpaceX states it will conduct testing of its Gen2 satellites at low insertion altitudes before orbit-raising them to operational altitudes, consistent with the authorization for its first generation satellites. However, elsewhere in the technical attachment, SpaceX states the new configuration of satellites will allow for direct-to-station launches, and we note at least one public statement concerning direct injection of satellites into the operational altitude. Please clarify how SpaceX intends to deploy its Gen2 satellites.6. What is the expected reliability of SpaceX’s Gen2 post-mission disposal systems? Does SpaceX expect the satellites will have reliability of systems necessary for post-mission disposal that is onpar with its first generation system to date?7. Given the updated orbital parameters, please confirm whether the expected in-orbit lifetime of a fully-functional SpaceX Gen2 satellite will continue to be five to seven years?8. Will SpaceX’s Gen2 satellites employ an identical automated collision avoidance system as that used for its first generation system, or has SpaceX made improvements or otherwise altered the system? Please confirm whether SpaceX will observe a risk threshold of 0.001% as the trigger for a collision avoidance maneuver, as indicated in its original application.9. SpaceX indicates that it has “maintained an overall probability of collision with small debris (down to one millimeter in diameter) sufficient to prevent compliance with post-mission disposal maneuvers of less than 0.01 for an individual Gen2 space station during its mission lifetime.” Please clarify this statement. What is the probability of collision with small debris per satellite, as calculated using the NASA Debris Assessment Software (DAS)? Of the two alternative orbital configurations described in SpaceX’s amended application, which has a lower probability overall of collision with small debris?10. Please provide a description of how SpaceX’s “internal software leveraging NASA’s Debris Assessment Software” works. How does SpaceX’s software differ from DAS? What are the input parameters? What is the casualty risk result obtained from simply using the NASA DAS, and how does this compare with the results of SpaceX’s calculation? Please provide for reference a “standard” DAS analysis, including supporting material concerning input data, to the extent this would help to illustrate the differences.11. Does SpaceX plan to utilize spacers and/or stiffening rods as part of the deployment of the satellites requested in this application?12. Please indicate whether the application, as modified, includes all satellites for which SpaceX is pursuing regulatory approval for operations in the frequency bands included in the referenced IBFS files, whether from the FCC, other ITU Administrations, or other national licensing authorities. To the extent there are any such satellites not described in the application, please provide information concerning the deployment plans for those satellites, including the number of such satellites and whether they are intended as substitutes or replacements for the satellites request in this application, or additional deployments.Please submit the requested information by January 7, 2022.Sincerely,Karl A. KensingerChief, Satellite DivisionInternational Bureau
Dear Mr. Wiltshire:On May 26, 2020, Space Exploration Holdings, LLC (SpaceX) submitted the above-referenced application for authority to construct, deploy, and operate a constellation in a configuration consisting of approximately 30,000 non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) satellites operating in low-earth orbit (LEO).SpaceX amended this application on August 18, 2021. To assist the Satellite Division’s review of the application, as amended, please provide the information requested below.1. SpaceX describes this satellite system as its “next-generation Gen2 System” and states that its Gen2 system is meant to complement its first generation system.4 Please clarify the relationship between SpaceX’s first generation satellite system and the Gen2 system SpaceX proposes in this application and amendment. Does SpaceX plan to operate both systems simultaneously? Will SpaceX deploy replacement satellites for the first generation system in addition to deploying satellites in this Gen2 system, or will the Gen2 satellites be deployed in lieu of first generation system replacement satellites? Will a customer user terminal be able to access satellites from either system, or will there be separate customer user terminals for each system?2. Section 25.159 of the Commission’s rules states that applicants for one licensed-but-unbuilt NGSO-like satellite system in a particular frequency band will not be permitted to apply for another NGSO-like satellite system in that frequency band. SpaceX requests frequencies in its Gen2 system application that are the same as frequencies authorized for its first generation system. Please address the applicability of section 25.159, particularly with respect to those frequencies requested in this Gen2 application that overlap with those authorized in the first generation system, given that SpaceX has not yet completed deploying its first generation system, or reached the minimum 50% required by milestone rules. Please address the cadence of launches going forward with respect to the currently authorized system.3. SpaceX states that it will generally observe a minimum elevation angle as low as 25 degrees, although certain shells may use lower elevations in certain circumstances. In its original application, SpaceX states that satellites in the high inclination shells operating at altitudes of 360 km and 373 km will observe a minimum elevation angle of five degrees for gateways located inside the Polar Regions. Given the amended orbital parameters, please indicate for each alternative orbital configuration which satellites would observe a minimum elevation angle below 25 degrees.4. Please provide additional detail regarding SpaceX’s launch plans for the Gen2 system. Specifically, for each of the alternative orbital configurations described in SpaceX’s application, what is the anticipated order for launching into the various altitudes and orbital planes? Does SpaceX have any updates regarding the expected timing of launches for the Gen2 system, and does SpaceX have an estimated timeline in which it would plan to notify the Commission concerning which of the two configurations it plans to deploy?5. In the amended legal narrative and technical attachment, SpaceX states it will conduct testing of its Gen2 satellites at low insertion altitudes before orbit-raising them to operational altitudes, consistent with the authorization for its first generation satellites. However, elsewhere in the technical attachment, SpaceX states the new configuration of satellites will allow for direct-to-station launches, and we note at least one public statement concerning direct injection of satellites into the operational altitude. Please clarify how SpaceX intends to deploy its Gen2 satellites.6. What is the expected reliability of SpaceX’s Gen2 post-mission disposal systems? Does SpaceX expect the satellites will have reliability of systems necessary for post-mission disposal that is onpar with its first generation system to date?7. Given the updated orbital parameters, please confirm whether the expected in-orbit lifetime of a fully-functional SpaceX Gen2 satellite will continue to be five to seven years?8. Will SpaceX’s Gen2 satellites employ an identical automated collision avoidance system as that used for its first generation system, or has SpaceX made improvements or otherwise altered the system? Please confirm whether SpaceX will observe a risk threshold of 0.001% as the trigger for a collision avoidance maneuver, as indicated in its original application.9. SpaceX indicates that it has “maintained an overall probability of collision with small debris (down to one millimeter in diameter) sufficient to prevent compliance with post-mission disposal maneuvers of less than 0.01 for an individual Gen2 space station during its mission lifetime.” Please clarify this statement. What is the probability of collision with small debris per satellite, as calculated using the NASA Debris Assessment Software (DAS)? Of the two alternative orbital configurations described in SpaceX’s amended application, which has a lower probability overall of collision with small debris?10. Please provide a description of how SpaceX’s “internal software leveraging NASA’s Debris Assessment Software” works. How does SpaceX’s software differ from DAS? What are the input parameters? What is the casualty risk result obtained from simply using the NASA DAS, and how does this compare with the results of SpaceX’s calculation? Please provide for reference a “standard” DAS analysis, including supporting material concerning input data, to the extent this would help to illustrate the differences.11. Does SpaceX plan to utilize spacers and/or stiffening rods as part of the deployment of the satellites requested in this application?12. Please indicate whether the application, as modified, includes all satellites for which SpaceX is pursuing regulatory approval for operations in the frequency bands included in the referenced IBFS files, whether from the FCC, other ITU Administrations, or other national licensing authorities. To the extent there are any such satellites not described in the application, please provide information concerning the deployment plans for those satellites, including the number of such satellites and whether they are intended as substitutes or replacements for the satellites request in this application, or additional deployments.Please submit the requested information by January 7, 2022.Sincerely,Karl A. KensingerChief, Satellite DivisionInternational Bureau
It appears that on December 23, the FCC accepted the filing of SpaceX's Gen2 amendment. In addition, the FCC asked several questions.
Launching satellites on Starship in March 2022 is very ambitious, even if the FAA is 100% cooperative.Last I checked there wasn't any sign of reviving the payload door?
While the deployment mechanism for the Starship launch vehicle is still being finalized, it may require tension rods.
Quote from: DreamyPickle on 01/08/2022 02:51 pmLaunching satellites on Starship in March 2022 is very ambitious, even if the FAA is 100% cooperative.Last I checked there wasn't any sign of reviving the payload door?They only state that they plan to start launching Gen 2 satellites in March. They don't say that the launch vehicle will be Starship.In fact, later in the document they write:QuoteWhile the deployment mechanism for the Starship launch vehicle is still being finalized, it may require tension rods. So the design of the deployment mechanism is not even finalized.
They're pursuing Configuration 1 which only used Starship, and abandoning Configuration 2 which used Falcon 9. Payload mechanism not being finalized doesn't disprove thoseIt's just ambitious timeline as usual
Quote from: Alvian@IDN on 01/08/2022 11:00 pmThey're pursuing Configuration 1 which only used Starship, and abandoning Configuration 2 which used Falcon 9. Payload mechanism not being finalized doesn't disprove thoseIt's just ambitious timeline as usualConfiguration 1 of the constellation was optimized for Starship. Configuration 2 was optimized for Falcon 9. I don't think the satellite design is exclusive to either vehicle.
You can read the SpaceX response, and it's pretty much telling that it's launched solely on Starship
SpaceX has now reached a point in the development of its Starship launch vehicle and Gen2 satellites that it can concentrate solely on Configuration 1 and no longer pursue Configuration 2. SpaceX confirms here that it still intends to begin launching the Gen2 system as early as March 2022, likely beginning with the 43 degree or 53 degree inclined planes.
Quote from: gongora on 01/09/2022 01:38 amQuote from: Alvian@IDN on 01/08/2022 11:00 pmThey're pursuing Configuration 1 which only used Starship, and abandoning Configuration 2 which used Falcon 9. Payload mechanism not being finalized doesn't disprove thoseIt's just ambitious timeline as usualConfiguration 1 of the constellation was optimized for Starship. Configuration 2 was optimized for Falcon 9. I don't think the satellite design is exclusive to either vehicle.You can read the SpaceX response, and it's pretty much telling that it's launched solely on StarshipFalcon 9 can't launch it (sufficiently) due to heavier mass etc. There's no words of optimized or anything, means the design is the same on both config. It's just that Configuration 2 is just in case they're not satisfied with current Starship progress
Quote from: Alvian@IDN on 01/09/2022 02:30 amQuote from: gongora on 01/09/2022 01:38 amQuote from: Alvian@IDN on 01/08/2022 11:00 pmThey're pursuing Configuration 1 which only used Starship, and abandoning Configuration 2 which used Falcon 9. Payload mechanism not being finalized doesn't disprove thoseIt's just ambitious timeline as usualConfiguration 1 of the constellation was optimized for Starship. Configuration 2 was optimized for Falcon 9. I don't think the satellite design is exclusive to either vehicle.You can read the SpaceX response, and it's pretty much telling that it's launched solely on StarshipFalcon 9 can't launch it (sufficiently) due to heavier mass etc. There's no words of optimized or anything, means the design is the same on both config. It's just that Configuration 2 is just in case they're not satisfied with current Starship progressIf satellites are ready before the Starship can launch them, I would expect SpaceX to launch at least some on F9s to test those satellites - after all, finding and fixing any issue early is how SpaceX usually tries to operate.
Regardless, there is no chance that SpaceX will get a license for Gen2 in March. They would probably be lucky to get it done this year.
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 01/09/2022 03:03 pmRegardless, there is no chance that SpaceX will get a license for Gen2 in March. They would probably be lucky to get it done this year.I really don't think there's a chance they get it this year.
Explain how Falcon 9 can launch 110-120 satellites at once while fulfilling that offers?
Quote from: Alvian@IDN on 01/11/2022 07:50 amIt clearly stated that both Configuration offers without having plane changes & direct to station insertion. Explain how Falcon 9 can launch 110-120 satellites at once while fulfilling that offers?Nobody here said anything about launching "110-120 satellites at once" this March. They might launch the equivalent of the Tintin's to do in orbit testing of the Gen2 satellites.
It clearly stated that both Configuration offers without having plane changes & direct to station insertion. Explain how Falcon 9 can launch 110-120 satellites at once while fulfilling that offers?