[Starlink] Starlink filings for D-Band via Tonga

Tue Dec 19 12:27:19 EST 2023

Today I learn that 117.975-137 MHz is considered at ITU for aviation and 
satellite [*].

Note that range overlaps with 'ESSAFI's 123 - 130GHz.

Maybe it is for that purpose - in-flight entertainment(?) that starlink 
requested the D-band frequencies, and not for sat-sat nor sat-gnd.

Alex

[*]

"Allocation of new frequencies to the aviation industry for aeronautical 
mobile satellite services (117.975-137 MHz). The new service will 
enhance bi-directional communication via non-GSO satellite systems for 
pilots and air traffic controllers everywhere, especially over oceanic 
and remote areas."

text quote from this URL at ITU:

https://www.itu.int/en/mediacentre/Pages/PR-2023-12-15-WRC23-closing-ceremony.aspx?utm_source=ITU+News+Newsletter&utm_campaign=c66517f297-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_19_12_2023_ITU-NEWSLETTER&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-2f420cccc6-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D&ct=t(EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_19_12_2023_ITU-NEWSLETTER_INT)&mc_cid=c66517f297&mc_eid=3ca8d7193e

Le 06/12/2023 à 13:02, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink a écrit :
> In another context someone pointed me to spacex saying 'D-band' in 
> april 2023 in this "NTIA Docket No. 230308-0068 / Docket 
> NTIA-2023-0003" 
> https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/publications/spacex.pdf
>
> From that text, I understand it would, or could, be for sat-to-gnd.
>
> Le 23/11/2023 à 14:40, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink a écrit :
>>
>> Le 17/11/2023 à 23:56, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink a écrit :
>>>
>>> Right. Word from the Tongan government's MEIDECC is that it's D band 
>>> as per the filing and that the reports on W band are wrong.
>>>
>> Can MEIDECC point me to the precise place at the ITU filing that says 
>> it's D band?  Thank you!
>>
>> I could not find the word 'D-band' or 'D band' in the 'ESIAFI 
>> application file  ("'ESIAFI II API-A(1).mdb"  at ITU 
>> https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/DisplayPublication/53068)
>>
>> People nominate bands in various ways.  As an example of a potential 
>> confusion, there is this other wikipedia image that shows the freqs 
>> in question (123-ish, 170-ish GHz) being called 'EHF' by ITU and 'W' 
>> by IEEE.  Further to the confusion, the diagram says that the EU, 
>> NATO and US ECM (not sure what  is ECM) call 'D' band something 
>> around 2 GHz or so, which is much lower than this 123-ish, 170-ish 
>> GHz. 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_spectrum#/media/File:Frq_Band_Comparison.png
>>
>> I will look later at maybe joining that ITU group to ask it there as 
>> well.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>> Beyond that, they're not authorised to say anything except that yes, 
>>> it's a genuine filing.
>>>
>>> I don't think Tonga is a likely launch base (no large tracts of land 
>>> to launch a rocket from, except as some locals would probably tell 
>>> you, from the driveway of a certain royal residence). Who knows.
>>>
>>> I'd also say that SpaceX filings to the FCC at least have a track 
>>> history of being superseded by the next filing a few weeks later 
>>> with completely different parameters. Whether that's just rapid 
>>> prototyping at SpaceX or whether they're deliberately designed as a 
>>> groundhog version of April Fool's Day for the competition's lawyers 
>>> to keep them spend money on litigation while SpaceX spends on 
>>> innovation is anyone's guess. Similarly, having slept over it, the 
>>> Tongan story could be a SpaceX attempt at establishing a "flag of 
>>> convenience" operation, or it could simply be another of Elon's 
>>> pranks to whip us and the media all up into a frenzy to keep people 
>>> talking about his enterprises.
>>>
>>> On 17/11/2023 11:43 pm, Ulrich Speidel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> OK, so this seems to be related to a somewhat bigger development 
>>>> that Starlink is pushing through Tonga as the regulatory authority:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/175ttvz/spacex_files_29988satellite_wband_network_using/ 
>>>>
>>>> https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacex-files-29988-satellite-w-band-network-using-kingdom-of-tonga-as-regulatory-home/ 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ESIAFI 1 was bought by Tonga - it was the old COMSTAR 4 satellite 
>>>> and named after their women's rugby team.
>>>>
>>>> Quite why they've chosen Tonga as regulatory home - no idea. Maybe 
>>>> because they think Tonga owes them a favour. Currently trying to 
>>>> find out more - stay tuned.
>>>>
>>>> On 17/11/2023 6:29 am, David Fernández via Starlink wrote:
>>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>>
>>>>> "A person on twitter seems to be saying this filing is precisely the
>>>>> filing that spacex did at FCC"
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you mind linking to that tweet, if it is public?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:27:03 +0100
>>>>> > From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu at gmail.com>
>>>>> > To: starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> > Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink filings for D-Band via Tonga
>>>>> > Message-ID: <805d52ce-b517-49b9-a053-8306cd20b8aa at gmail.com>
>>>>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Towards clarification,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The .mdb file of the ITU filing can be read with Excel (tab Data ->
>>>>> > leftmost button 'Access'). The .mdb is on the web page of the ITU
>>>>> > filing, at the bottom of the page.
>>>>> > 
>>>>> https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/DisplayPublication/53068
>>>>> >
>>>>> > It might be that this 'ESIAFI II' is just a name because of some 
>>>>> reason.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > There are some interesting dates like '06/03/2023', '13/03/2023' 
>>>>> and
>>>>> > '20/03/2023' and '6/10/2023'.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > There is much data about orbits, powers, beams that I dont know 
>>>>> how to
>>>>> > interpret. I would need the precise description of the database 
>>>>> format,
>>>>> > but I dont know where to get it from.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The frequencies are listed, as I interpret these fields: 123 GHz 
>>>>> - 130
>>>>> > GHz centered on 126.5 GHz, 158.5-164 c 161.25 and 167-174.5 c 
>>>>> 170.75.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > About D-band: I am not sure what is precisely a 'D band' and I 
>>>>> think
>>>>> > that discussion about bands is very complicated. I know there is
>>>>> > wikipedia page about it, yes.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > A person on twitter seems to be saying this filing is precisely the
>>>>> > filing that spacex did at FCC; but comparing the numbers shows some
>>>>> > differences: total sats per plane differ at some altitudes like 
>>>>> at 525km
>>>>> > altitude: ITU says 3600 sats whereas FCC says 3360 sats. There 
>>>>> can be
>>>>> > speculations as to why they differ as there can be errors of 
>>>>> various
>>>>> > people including myself.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The person on twitter tells that ITU filing is in this table, 
>>>>> but I dont
>>>>> > know how he generated it. Not sure whether he made some syntax 
>>>>> error.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Altitude (km) Inclination (degrees) Satellites per Plane Planes
>>>>> >> Total Satellites
>>>>> >> 340 53 110 48 5280
>>>>> >> 345 46 110 48 5280
>>>>> >> 350 38 110 48 5280
>>>>> >> 360 96.9 120 30 3600
>>>>> >> 525 53 120 28 3600 [nota by me: FCC says 3360 and not 3600, see
>>>>> >> table below]
>>>>> >> 530 43 120 28 3600
>>>>> >> 535 33 120 28 3600
>>>>> >> 604 148 12 12 144
>>>>> >> 614 115.7 18 18 324
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I found this earlier FCC document has this table at this URL
>>>>> > https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-91A1.pdf (not sure
>>>>> > whether it is the most authoritative, but at least the mathematics
>>>>> > 28*120 at altitude 525 does make sense to be 3360).
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Altitude (km) Inclination (degrees) Orbital Planes sats/plane 
>>>>> Total sats
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> 340 53 48 110 5280
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> 345 46 48 110 5280
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> 350 38 48 110 5280
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> 360 96.9 30 120 3600
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> 525 53 28 120 3360 [nota by me:
>>>>> >> 28*120 == 3360 indeed]
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> 530 43 28 120 3360
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> 535 33 28 120 3360
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> 604 148 12 12 144
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> 614 115.7 18 18 324
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Alex
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Le 16/11/2023 à 10:30, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink a écrit :
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Le 15/11/2023 à 16:48, David Fernández via Starlink a écrit :
>>>>> >>> I have got news about the recent filing by Starlink for the 
>>>>> use of
>>>>> >>> frequencies in D-band:
>>>>> >>> 
>>>>> https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/DisplayPublication/53068
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> This has been done via Tonga, not the USA, and is for both, 
>>>>> uplink and
>>>>> >>> downlink frequencies, although only downlink seems to be 
>>>>> allocated now
>>>>> >>> for satellite use.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Thanks for the pointer.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> It is the first time I hear about this 'ESIAFI II' 
>>>>> constellation. I
>>>>> >> understand it is a different thing than the starlink existing
>>>>> >> constellation.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> It adds to the list of plans of LEO Internet constellations 
>>>>> (starlink,
>>>>> >> kuiper, oneweb etc.)
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Alex
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Regards,
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> David
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>> Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>> -- 
>>>> ****************************************************************
>>>> Dr. Ulrich Speidel
>>>>
>>>> School of Computer Science
>>>>
>>>> Room 303S.594 (City Campus)
>>>>
>>>> The University of Auckland
>>>> u.speidel at auckland.ac.nz http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
>>>> ****************************************************************
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> -- 
>>> ****************************************************************
>>> Dr. Ulrich Speidel
>>>
>>> School of Computer Science
>>>
>>> Room 303S.594 (City Campus)
>>>
>>> The University of Auckland
>>> u.speidel at auckland.ac.nz http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
>>> ****************************************************************
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink