Author Topic: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings  (Read 342247 times)

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9108
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #380 on: 12/29/2021 03:08 am »
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 ) ..

This question caught my eye too, but I guess it depends on how they define "licensed-but-unbuilt" right? Clearly Gen1 is not "unbuilt", it is being "built". As for 50% milestone, it's 6 years after authorization, so the milestone is in 2024, plenty of time.

Offline Conexion Espacial

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2079
  • Liked: 3166
  • Likes Given: 2275
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #381 on: 12/29/2021 03:56 pm »
It appears that on December 23, the FCC accepted the filing of SpaceX's Gen2 amendment.  In addition, the FCC asked several questions.

Quote
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. Kensinger
Chief, Satellite Division
International Bureau
These are very good questions from the FCC, it will be interesting to see SpaceX's answers (if released) as it will not only reveal plans for Starlink Gen2, but a launch plan for Starship, new data on Gen2 and how Gen1 will be addressed in the coming months.
I publish information in Spanish about space and rockets.
www.x.com/conexionspacial

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9108
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #382 on: 01/08/2022 06:58 am »
It appears that on December 23, the FCC accepted the filing of SpaceX's Gen2 amendment.  In addition, the FCC asked several questions.

SpaceX's reply: https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=14456966

No insight into Gen2 satellite hardware, biggest news is that they no longer want to pursue two configurations, they're now betting everything on Configuration 1 which is optimized for Starship, first Gen2 launch NET March 2022.

Also it looks like the ~40,000 satellites filed to ITU via Germany (37,756 for E-band, 3,360 for Ku/Ka band) is not Gen2, it's a new constellation.

Offline Hyperborealis

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 109
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 533
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #383 on: 01/08/2022 11:41 am »
The letter also mentions that "SpaceX has exceeded its own expectations in the pace of developing both its Gen2 satellites and Its Starship launch vehicle." The company confirms it plans to start launching Gen2 satellites this March.

Also, the letter is, let's say, tart, about the length of time the FCC is taking in processing the filing and about the disparity in the amount of information the FCC is requesting of SpaceX as compared with other operators.

Interesting read.

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
  • Home
  • Liked: 925
  • Likes Given: 205
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #384 on: 01/08/2022 02:51 pm »
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?

Online scr00chy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1243
  • Czechia
    • ElonX.net
  • Liked: 1746
  • Likes Given: 1896
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #385 on: 01/08/2022 03:54 pm »
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?

Yeah, I don't think we'll see any payloads on Starship until late 2022 at the earliest.

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 348
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #386 on: 01/08/2022 07:24 pm »
Remember spacex was launching customer payloads on early falcon 9 recovery attempts. Doing the same could mean slots on starship becoming available from the first fully orbital test flight. Though I do wonder how they would get to starlink inclinations from Boca Chica.

Offline jpo234

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2079
  • Liked: 2356
  • Likes Given: 2335
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #387 on: 01/08/2022 08:41 pm »
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?
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:

Quote
While 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.
« Last Edit: 01/08/2022 08:45 pm by jpo234 »
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline Alvian@IDN

Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #388 on: 01/08/2022 11:00 pm »
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?
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:

Quote
While 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 those

It's just ambitious timeline as usual
« Last Edit: 01/08/2022 11:03 pm by Alvian@IDN »
My parents was just being born when the Apollo program is over. Why we are still stuck in this stagnation, let's go forward again

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10807
  • US
  • Liked: 15001
  • Likes Given: 6579
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #389 on: 01/09/2022 01:38 am »
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 those

It's just ambitious timeline as usual

Configuration 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.

Offline Alvian@IDN

Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #390 on: 01/09/2022 02:30 am »
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 those

It's just ambitious timeline as usual

Configuration 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

Falcon 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
« Last Edit: 01/09/2022 02:41 am by Alvian@IDN »
My parents was just being born when the Apollo program is over. Why we are still stuck in this stagnation, let's go forward again

Offline jpo234

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2079
  • Liked: 2356
  • Likes Given: 2335
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #391 on: 01/09/2022 11:49 am »
You can read the SpaceX response, and it's pretty much telling that it's launched solely on Starship
Quote from: Counsel to SpaceX
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.
Nowhere does it say that the March Gen2 launches are supposed to be on Starship. All it says is, that they are now confident  enough in Starship that Configuration 2 is not longer needed. Launching a few Gen2 sats on a Falcon9 for initial tests does not contradict this.
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline Rebel44

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 591
  • Liked: 571
  • Likes Given: 2181
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #392 on: 01/09/2022 12:01 pm »
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 those

It's just ambitious timeline as usual

Configuration 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

Falcon 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

If 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.

Offline DistantTemple

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2034
  • England
  • Liked: 1714
  • Likes Given: 2888
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #393 on: 01/09/2022 12:19 pm »
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 those

It's just ambitious timeline as usual

Configuration 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

Falcon 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

If 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.
Configuration 1 may be optimized for Starship. But will SX wait for SS? I doubt it. How may Starlinks can F9 launch to that orbit?
We can always grow new new dendrites. Reach out and make connections and your world will burst with new insights. Then repose in consciousness.

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
  • Liked: 2734
  • Likes Given: 11218
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #394 on: 01/09/2022 03:03 pm »
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.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10807
  • US
  • Liked: 15001
  • Likes Given: 6579
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #395 on: 01/09/2022 03:22 pm »
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.

I really don't think there's a chance they get it this year.

Offline vaporcobra

Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #396 on: 01/11/2022 04:10 am »
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.

I really don't think there's a chance they get it this year.

The only real source of optimism we now have is that SpaceX received permission to launch Tintin A/B and did so before the first ~4400-satellite constellation license was approved. So I would be shocked if SpaceX doesn't at least launch a few Gen2 prototypes this year even if the FCC continues to drag its feet to such a ridiculous degree.

Offline Alvian@IDN

Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #397 on: 01/11/2022 07:50 am »
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 those

It's just ambitious timeline as usual

Configuration 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

Falcon 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

If 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.
Big If, I would say

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?

I will gladly drink my milk if any Gen2 launched on Falcon 9
« Last Edit: 01/11/2022 07:53 am by Alvian@IDN »
My parents was just being born when the Apollo program is over. Why we are still stuck in this stagnation, let's go forward again

Offline jpo234

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2079
  • Liked: 2356
  • Likes Given: 2335
Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #398 on: 01/11/2022 08:00 am »
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, however, launch the equivalent of the Tintin's to do in orbit testing of the Gen2 satellites. That could be done before the full constellation is approved.
« Last Edit: 01/11/2022 08:02 am by jpo234 »
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline Alvian@IDN

Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings
« Reply #399 on: 01/11/2022 08:02 am »
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?
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.
Forget about the timeline & focus to what it do. They're clearly stated direct to station insertion without plane changes. That requires 110-120 to be launched in one go
My parents was just being born when the Apollo program is over. Why we are still stuck in this stagnation, let's go forward again

Tags:
 

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