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

["David Fernández" <davidfdzp@gmail.com>]

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@gmail.com>
> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink filings for D-Band via Tonga
> Message-ID: <805d52ce-b517-49b9-a053-8306cd20b8aa@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