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.petre...@gmail.com>
> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink filings for D-Band via Tonga
> Message-ID: <805d52ce-b517-49b9-a053-8306cd20b...@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
