Re: [Starlink] Starlink filings for D-Band via Tonga

[Ulrich Speidel <u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3307 bytes --]

On 19/11/2023 6:43 am, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink wrote:
>
> For me, the filing has a syntax error in the name (a superfluous
> preceding quote in "'ESIAFI II").  It is an English error.  It should be
> corrected.  See that quote in the field 'Satellite Name' at
> https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/DisplayPublication/53068 
> <https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/DisplayPublication/53068>
>
It's not English, it's Tongan, and it's not a syntax error (nor a typing 
error) either. It's what linguists call a "glottal stop" and Tongan 
(like some other Polynesian languages) is awash with it.

It is quite common in front of vowels at the start of a word, and 
indicates that the vowel that follows is short. Examples (wink, wink): 
'Etuate (transliteration of "Edward" or 'Etuini (transliteration of 
"Edwin").

They also occur inside words - such as "Ha'apai".

The first example is the first name of the (to the best of my knowledge) 
first PhD graduate in Computer Science ever from Tonga, 'Etuate Cocker. 
I was his supervisor, so am fairly familiar with the complaint from 
referees moaning that "these guys can't spell so their paper must have 
been written in a haste". Which makes me a little sympathetic to 
SpaceX's near complete avoidance of the publishing circus.

I've lost count of the number of times where some online form wouldn't 
accept it, or where we got challenged because of some mismatch. 'Etuate 
like many Tongan often leaves it out to make it easier for everyone, 
however I've always used it as I'd like to respect Tongan culture and 
pronunciation. BTW 'Esiafi is pronounced E-si-ah-fi with E as in 
"Edward", si as in the Spanish "yes" and fi as in "fee".

> The frequencies: hopefully there is no syntax error there too. If there
> is a superfluous zero, then the filing might actually be around 13GHz
> and not 130GHz.  This should be asked whether they are sure about it 
> or not.
I'm sure they are sure.
>
> The D-band: I am not an expert at that high freqs.  The wikipedia page
> tells D-band is "110 GHz to 170 GHz".  But the ITU filinggoes up to
> 174.5GHz (if there is no syntax error in the freqs) , which is above the
> limit.  This should be clarified.
Band labeling up there is a bit approximate.
>
> The orbits: not sure how to see precisely the orbit altitudes, planes,
> etc. in a table manner.  The reddit poster shown a table, claimed
> similarity to FCC orbits, but he did not say how he built that table.
> He should clarify.
If you look at the FCC filings by SpaceX over time, you'll notice that 
the orbital parameters more than anything have changed wildly. I 
wouldn't put much weight on them.
>
> I think there could be a way to request clarifications about this filing
> at ITU; I will look at that maybe later, everyone can.  The Tonga gov't
> should accept request for clarifications as well.

I'm sure they will.

-- 

****************************************************************
Dr. Ulrich Speidel

School of Computer Science

Room 303S.594 (City Campus)

The University of Auckland
u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz  
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
****************************************************************



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4902 bytes --]