From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D4233CB41 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 12:27:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 3BJHRJkl035643 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 18:27:19 +0100 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id D7005205807 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 18:27:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D00692056BD for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 18:27:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.11.241.37] ([10.11.241.37]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 3BJHRJAL005316 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 18:27:19 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 18:27:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: fr To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <94ac13d4-ccf2-475e-a93d-6242fdf1bcbe@gmail.com> From: Alexandre Petrescu In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CEA-Virus: SOPHOS_SAVI_ERROR_OLD_VIRUS_DATA Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink filings for D-Band via Tonga X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 17:27:21 -0000 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 >>>>> > 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 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Starlink mailing list >>>>> Starlink@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@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@auckland.ac.nz http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/ >>> **************************************************************** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Starlink mailing list >>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >> _______________________________________________ >> Starlink mailing list >> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink