<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Right. Word from the Tongan government's <span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">MEIDECC </span>is
that it's D band as per the filing and that the reports on W band
are wrong. Beyond that, they're not authorised to say anything
except that yes, it's a genuine filing.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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history of being superseded by the next filing a few weeks later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. <br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/11/2023 11:43 pm, Ulrich Speidel
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:af13d544-60c8-4811-954f-f300bd4e6150@auckland.ac.nz">
<p>OK, so this seems to be related to a somewhat bigger
development that Starlink is pushing through Tonga as the
regulatory authority:</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/175ttvz/spacex_files_29988satellite_wband_network_using/" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/175ttvz/spacex_files_29988satellite_wband_network_using/</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacex-files-29988-satellite-w-band-network-using-kingdom-of-tonga-as-regulatory-home/" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacex-files-29988-satellite-w-band-network-using-kingdom-of-tonga-as-regulatory-home/</a><br>
</p>
<p>ESIAFI 1 was bought by Tonga - it was the old COMSTAR 4
satellite and named after their women's rugby team.</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/11/2023 6:29 am, David
Fernández via Starlink wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAC=tZ0rVH-hFqAGJXdza=z+g3mA8ryAvZ5NFoFfYBmB=umYEDA@mail.gmail.com">
Hi Alex,<br>
<br>
"A person on twitter seems to be saying this filing is precisely
the<br>
filing that spacex did at FCC"<br>
<br>
Would you mind linking to that tweet, if it is public?<br>
<br>
Thank you.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
<br>
> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:27:03 +0100<br>
> From: Alexandre Petrescu <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true"><alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com></a><br>
> To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" moz-do-not-send="true">starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink filings for D-Band via
Tonga<br>
> Message-ID: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:805d52ce-b517-49b9-a053-8306cd20b8aa@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true"><805d52ce-b517-49b9-a053-8306cd20b8aa@gmail.com></a><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed<br>
><br>
> Towards clarification,<br>
><br>
> The .mdb file of the ITU filing can be read with Excel (tab
Data -><br>
> leftmost button 'Access'). The .mdb is on the web page of
the ITU<br>
> filing, at the bottom of the page.<br>
> <a href="https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/DisplayPublication/53068" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/DisplayPublication/53068</a><br>
><br>
> It might be that this 'ESIAFI II' is just a name because of
some reason.<br>
><br>
> There are some interesting dates like '06/03/2023',
'13/03/2023' and<br>
> '20/03/2023' and '6/10/2023'.<br>
><br>
> There is much data about orbits, powers, beams that I dont
know how to<br>
> interpret. I would need the precise description of the
database format,<br>
> but I dont know where to get it from.<br>
><br>
> The frequencies are listed, as I interpret these fields:
123 GHz - 130<br>
> GHz centered on 126.5 GHz, 158.5-164 c 161.25 and 167-174.5
c 170.75.<br>
><br>
> About D-band: I am not sure what is precisely a 'D band'
and I think<br>
> that discussion about bands is very complicated. I know
there is<br>
> wikipedia page about it, yes.<br>
><br>
> A person on twitter seems to be saying this filing is
precisely the<br>
> filing that spacex did at FCC; but comparing the numbers
shows some<br>
> differences: total sats per plane differ at some altitudes
like at 525km<br>
> altitude: ITU says 3600 sats whereas FCC says 3360 sats.
There can be<br>
> speculations as to why they differ as there can be errors
of various<br>
> people including myself.<br>
><br>
> The person on twitter tells that ITU filing is in this
table, but I dont<br>
> know how he generated it. Not sure whether he made some
syntax error.<br>
><br>
>> Altitude (km) Inclination (degrees) Satellites per
Plane Planes<br>
>> Total Satellites<br>
>> 340 53 110 48 5280<br>
>> 345 46 110 48 5280<br>
>> 350 38 110 48 5280<br>
>> 360 96.9 120 30 3600<br>
>> 525 53 120 28 3600 [nota by me: FCC says 3360 and not
3600, see<br>
>> table below]<br>
>> 530 43 120 28 3600<br>
>> 535 33 120 28 3600<br>
>> 604 148 12 12 144<br>
>> 614 115.7 18 18 324<br>
>><br>
><br>
> I found this earlier FCC document has this table at this
URL<br>
> <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-91A1.pdf" moz-do-not-send="true">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-91A1.pdf</a>
(not sure<br>
> whether it is the most authoritative, but at least the
mathematics<br>
> 28*120 at altitude 525 does make sense to be 3360).<br>
><br>
>> Altitude (km) Inclination (degrees) Orbital Planes
sats/plane Total sats<br>
>><br>
>> 340 53 48 110 5280<br>
>><br>
>> 345 46 48 110 5280<br>
>><br>
>> 350 38 48 110 5280<br>
>><br>
>> 360 96.9 30 120 3600<br>
>><br>
>> 525 53 28 120 3360 [nota by me:<br>
>> 28*120 == 3360 indeed]<br>
>><br>
>> 530 43 28 120 3360<br>
>><br>
>> 535 33 28 120 3360<br>
>><br>
>> 604 148 12 12 144<br>
>><br>
>> 614 115.7 18 18 324<br>
>><br>
><br>
> Alex<br>
><br>
><br>
> Le 16/11/2023 à 10:30, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink a
écrit :<br>
>><br>
>> Le 15/11/2023 à 16:48, David Fernández via Starlink a
écrit :<br>
>>> I have got news about the recent filing by Starlink
for the use of<br>
>>> frequencies in D-band:<br>
>>> <a href="https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/DisplayPublication/53068" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/DisplayPublication/53068</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> This has been done via Tonga, not the USA, and is
for both, uplink and<br>
>>> downlink frequencies, although only downlink seems
to be allocated now<br>
>>> for satellite use.<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks for the pointer.<br>
>><br>
>> It is the first time I hear about this 'ESIAFI II'
constellation. I<br>
>> understand it is a different thing than the starlink
existing<br>
>> constellation.<br>
>><br>
>> It adds to the list of plans of LEO Internet
constellations (starlink,<br>
>> kuiper, oneweb etc.)<br>
>><br>
>> Alex<br>
>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Regards,<br>
>>><br>
>>> David<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Starlink mailing list<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" moz-do-not-send="true">Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink</a><br>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
****************************************************************
Dr. Ulrich Speidel
School of Computer Science
Room 303S.594 (City Campus)
The University of Auckland
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz" moz-do-not-send="true">u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/</a>
****************************************************************
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
****************************************************************
Dr. Ulrich Speidel
School of Computer Science
Room 303S.594 (City Campus)
The University of Auckland
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz">u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/">http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/</a>
****************************************************************
</pre>
</body>
</html>