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

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

[David Fernández]

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

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

Hi, David

Sorry, I've mistaken twitter for reddit.

The link is reddit.  It is 
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/175ttvz/spacex_files_29988satellite_wband_network_using/

The person is 'spacerfirstclass' (_if_ it is a person, I dont know).

Referring to the ITU orbit filing he says (emphasis his):

> This is exactly the same as Starlink Gen2 orbits filed with FCC, so *I 
> don't think this is a new constellation, this is just SpaceX adding G 
> band gateway connection to the existing Gen2 constellation*, and for 
> some reason they don't want to go through FCC to do this. 

Alex

Le 16/11/2023 à 18:29, David Fernández via Starlink a écrit :
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

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

[Ulrich Speidel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5688 bytes --]

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@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 
> <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 
> <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 
> <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 
> <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/
****************************************************************



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8920 bytes --]

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

[Dave Taht]

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@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@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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> ****************************************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@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

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

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7423 bytes --]

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@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@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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>> ****************************************************************
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@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@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

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

[Ulrich Speidel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9991 bytes --]

NZ does have lots of electricity. Peter Beck is from Invercargill, which 
essentially lives off a huge aluminium smelter at its doorstep that's 
threatening to close every couple of years unless the government throws 
it a few extra sweets. Rocket propellant manufacturing would be just the 
thing to do - how you'd get it up to Mahia where they launch from is 
another question. So he'll be well aware of that. But they get their 
rockets to Mahia from their Auckland factory, which incidentally is at 
the outer edge of walking distance from my place (we've been renting our 
our downstairs flat as an airbnb for a few years and have had the odd 
RocketLab engineer stay with us).

Tonga is another issue.

On 18/11/2023 7:37 am, David Lang wrote:
> 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/ 
> <https://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-spaceports-mapped>
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 5:43 AM Ulrich Speidel via Starlink
> > <starlink@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.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/ 
> <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@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 
> <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 
> <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 
> <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 
> <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/ 
> <http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich>
> >> ****************************************************************
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Starlink mailing list
> >> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink 
> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > :( My old R&D campus is up for sale: https://tinyurl.com/yurtlab 
> <https://tinyurl.com/yurtlab>
> > Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
> > _______________________________________________
> > Starlink mailing list
> > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink 
> <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/
****************************************************************



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 15153 bytes --]

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

[Ulrich Speidel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7415 bytes --]

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. 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 <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 
>> <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 
>> <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 
>> <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 
>> <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/
****************************************************************



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 11644 bytes --]

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

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. Beyond 
> that, they're not authorised to say anything except that yes, it's a 
> genuine filing.
>
It's good to know it's a genuine filing and not some robot or AI.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Because these are public matters and we are all concerned at large.

Alex

> 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 <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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

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

[Ulrich Speidel]

[-- 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 --]

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

Le 19/11/2023 à 02:18, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink a écrit :
> 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
>>
> 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.
>
Ah!  Thanks for the clarification and sorry for having said that.

So we should probably talk about the 'ESIAFI II sats indeed. (in English 
there is sometimes talk of year '78 short for 1978; I think a quote is 
also a prefix of a variable in some particular programming language).

> 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.

YEt they represent large bands.  They could fit a lot of Gbit/s.


>>
>> 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 will look closer at the FCC filings over time, of spacex.  I tend to 
agree they might have changed, not least because FCC also imposed change.

The issue here is how the person on reddit knows the orbit scheme 
proposed in the ITU filing, such as to qualify it to be similar to that 
of FCC.  The FCC filings have tables of orbit schemes (number of orbit 
planes per altitudes, sats per orbit, etc).  But the ITU filing does not 
show such, or I cant see it.

>>
>> 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.
>
I wonder whether Tonga government frequency regulator features a website 
or an email address where I could ask what is the proposed orbit scheme 
of the 'ESIAFI II satellite constellation?

Alex

> -- 
> ****************************************************************
> 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

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

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 <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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

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 <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
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

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 <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
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

In another article[*] about this WRC event's discussion they mention 
more frequencies ; some seem to be on and around the 'ESSIAFI II 
frequencies, and even beyond D-band's upper limit of 170GHz (limit told 
by wikipedia).  It cites these frequencies by refering to document 
resolution COM6/17, document to which I have no access unfortunately.

     102-109.5 GHz
     151.5-164 GHz
     167-174.8 GHz
     209-226 GHz
     252-275 GHz

For comparison, I recall below the 'ESSIAFI II frequencies from 
https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/DisplayPublication/53068 
:

- 123000 - 130000 MHz

- 158500 - 164000 MHz

- 167000 - 174500 MHz

Alex

PS: the article about WRC freqs discussions is from 
https://www.6gworld.com/exclusives/itu-defines-frequency-bands-for-6g-studies/ 
and says, among other things:

> The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has defined several 
> frequency ranges in the sub-Terahertz band for future 6G network 
> studies. The 2023 World Radiocommunication Conference 
> <https://www.6gworld.com/a-look-ahead-to-wrc-23-what-to-look-for-why-its-important/> 
> (WRC-23) resolution COM6/17 establishes the following areas for the 
> development of the next generation of mobile communications:
>
>   * 102-109.5 GHz
>   * 151.5-164 GHz
>   * 167-174.8 GHz
>   * 209-226 GHz
>   * 252-275 GHz
>
> According to the resolution, the Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R) 
> must complete the investigations in time for the WRC-31. The task has 
> already been added to the event’s preliminary agenda.
>
> The studies have to consider the technical and operational 
> characteristics of terrestrial 6G systems operating in these suggested 
> frequency bands, including the evolution of IMT through technological 
> advances and spectrally efficient techniques.
>
> The resolution goes on to say that ITU-R must take into account the 
> deployment scenarios envisaged for 6G systems and the requirements of 
> high data traffic, such as in dense urban areas and at peak times.
>
> The investigations also need to include the developing countries’ 
> demands and set up a timeframe in which spectrum would be required.
>

Le 21/12/2023 à 11:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink a écrit :
> overlap: sorry! it is indeed MHz and not GHz, I overlooked that.
>
> But the 117-137 _MHz_ bands are already used from ground to planes; 
> the modernisations I have seen of it relate to automating the status 
> voice bulletins, and maybe the use of IP over airbands.  Putting that 
> on LEO sats, hmm, looks newer.  I am not an expert in that band.
>
> D-band better for airplanes above clouds: I agree with the theory.
>
> Alex
>
> Le 21/12/2023 à 10:45, David Fernández via Starlink a écrit :
>> There is no overlap between 117.975-137 MHz and 123 - 130GHz.
>>
>> D-Band will work much better for links on aircraft flying above
>> clouds, less attenuation.
>>
>>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 18:27:19 +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: <cd0f2602-9ce6-4b8e-94e4-481493e7a3c2@gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>>
>>> 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 <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
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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/
>>>>>>> ****************************************************************
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

overlap: sorry! it is indeed MHz and not GHz, I overlooked that.

But the 117-137 _MHz_ bands are already used from ground to planes; the 
modernisations I have seen of it relate to automating the status voice 
bulletins, and maybe the use of IP over airbands.  Putting that on LEO 
sats, hmm, looks newer.  I am not an expert in that band.

D-band better for airplanes above clouds: I agree with the theory.

Alex

Le 21/12/2023 à 10:45, David Fernández via Starlink a écrit :
> There is no overlap between 117.975-137 MHz and 123 - 130GHz.
>
> D-Band will work much better for links on aircraft flying above
> clouds, less attenuation.
>
>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 18:27:19 +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: <cd0f2602-9ce6-4b8e-94e4-481493e7a3c2@gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>
>> 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 <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
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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/
>>>>>> ****************************************************************
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

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

[David Fernández]

There is no overlap between 117.975-137 MHz and 123 - 130GHz.

D-Band will work much better for links on aircraft flying above
clouds, less attenuation.

> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 18:27:19 +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: <cd0f2602-9ce6-4b8e-94e4-481493e7a3c2@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> 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 <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
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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/
>>>>> ****************************************************************

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

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
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

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

[Starlink] Starlink filings for D-Band via Tonga

[David Fernández]

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.

Regards,

David