[Starlink] Starlink filings for D-Band via Tonga

Fri Nov 17 13:37:40 EST 2023

NASASpaceflight.com had an interview with Peter Beck (rocket labs founder) last 
weekend where they talked about their plans for Neutron launches being only from 
the US, and he pointed out that the entire output of LOX in New Zealand wouldn't 
be able to handle even a modest launch cadence.

Starship requires FAR more propellant, I don't know what countries south of the 
US have sufficient production capacity to even be considered. And even if they 
are going to build the propellant generation themselves, that takes a lot of 
electricity. And if they build the power generation as well, then you need the 
skilled manpower to run everything.

Tesla has pulled back it's plans to develop the production lines for their next 
car in their new plant in Mexico because of the difficulty in getting the 
engineers to move there for the months/years needed to bring things up (they are 
instead going to do it in Austin). I would expect even more problems trying to 
get suitable rocket engineers to move.

And if they can do orbital refueling on a routine basis, I don't think they need 
a more southerly launch pad, it doesn't gain _that_ much velocity

So I don't see them trying to move south further.

David Lang

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023, Dave Taht via Starlink wrote:

> Were I as ambitious as spacex, I would be looking for other places to
> launch from in the southern hemisphere or near the equator.
>
> https://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-spaceports-mapped/
>
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 5:43 AM Ulrich Speidel via Starlink
> <starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net> 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/
>> ****************************************************************
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
>
>
> -- 
> :( My old R&D campus is up for sale: https://tinyurl.com/yurtlab
> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink