Attachment response

This document pretains to SAT-MOD-20030606-00098 for Modification on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATMOD2003060600098_369801

                                            1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004-2595 rn




William D. Wallace
(202) 624-2807
wwallace@crowell.com



                                                     April 12, 2004                      Received

BY HAND DELIVERY

Mr. Thomas S. Tycz
International Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
445 Twelfth Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

         RE:         L/Q Licensee, Inc., License Modification Application
                     Call Sign S2115, FCC File No. SAT-MOD-20030606-00098

Dear Mr. Tycz:

       This letter is submitted on behalf of L/Q Licensee, Inc. (“LQL”), in response to
the questions posed in a letter from you dated March 26,2004, regarding the
proposed orbital debris mitigation plan for the Globalstar Above 1GHz Mobile-
Satellite Service (“MSS’) satellite constellation and the request for addition of
certain emission designators.

       In its orbital debris mitigation plan, LQL proposed to use 1514 kilometers as
a graveyard orbit for the Globalstar constellation satellites. LQL explained that the
Globalstar satellites were designed to use 1514 km as a graveyard orbit and,
therefore, have the appropriate amount of fuel to be disposed of in an orbit of
altitude 1514 km. At the time of satellite design, ITT Industries, Systems Division,
a subcontractor to Space Systems/Loral, Inc., studied and recommended an altitude
for a graveyard orbit of 1500 km because it is relatively undesirable for active
telecommunications operations as a result of the adverse radiation environment.

         A copy of the ITT recommendation is enclosed. Your questions regarding the
orbital debris plan and emission designators are repeated and answered below.

      Is it technically feasible to propel Globalstar Big LEO satellites into orbits
with perigee altitudes above 2000 kilometers or ensure that they will re-enter the
atmosphere within 25 years? I f not, please explain why neither of these disposal
arrangements is technically feasible and estimate the highest and lowest perigee(s)
attainable with current fuel supplies. In answering this question please address


                 Crowell & Moring LLP   s   www.crowell.com     Washington      Irvine    London     Brussels


Mr. Thomas S. Tycz
April 12, 2004
Page 2 of 4


separately satellites that are still fully functional and those that have been removed
from a n operational orbit due to failure of the main communications payload.
       All the Globalstar satellites were launched with the same fuel tank, and the
tank was filled as much as possible. The Globalstar system used two different
launch vehicles with different capabilities. Some satellites were injected nearly
directly into the 1414 kilometer operational orbit, while others were released into a
lower phasing orbit and then moved to that altitude. As a result, the fuel available
varies greatly from satellite to satellite.
       Sixteen of the 52 satellites in orbit currently have sufficient fuel to meet their
expected useful life spans and then to be capable of either being raised to a 2000
kilometer altitude orbit, or being lowered for re-entry. The other 36 satellites do not
have sufficient fuel reserves to be raised to 2000 kilometers or to be lowered for re-
entry. These 36 satellites have varying fuel reserves which would permit individual
satellites be raised to altitudes ranging from 1514 kilometers up to 1900 kilometers.

      The two satellites that are currently in the graveyard orbit of 1514
kilometers, pursuant to Special Temporary Authority (see File No. SAT-STA-
20040309-00028) have sufficient fuel reserves for raising to 1800 kilometers.

      Even though it would be technically possible to lower some of the satellites,
the ground system and satellites were not designed for re-entry.

      If it is technically feasible to arrange for re-entry of currently functional
Globalstar Big LEO satellites within 25 years or place them in disposal orbits with
perigees above 2000 kilometers, or at some other altitude above 1514 kilometers or
below 1400 kilometers, to what extent would reservation of the fuel required to effect
disposal by these means rather than using a disposal orbit at 1514 kilometers,
reduce the satellites’ remaining service life?
       As indicated above, there are fuel reserves on the 52 satellites sufficient to
allow the satellites to complete their useful life spans and be raised to orbital
altitudes ranging from 1514 kilometers to above 2000 kilometers.

      Obviously, reserving sufficient fuel to raise each satellite above 1514
kilometers has an impact on its expected or potential service life. The NASA
guidelines were not in place at the time that the Globalstar satellites were designed
and at the time that construction, launch and operation of the satellites were
authorized by the Commission.

      The graveyard orbit of 1514 kilometers was chosen with the best information
available a t the time. Representatives of the Globalstar system met with NASA to


             Crowell ?i Moring LLP   www.crowell.com   = Washington = Irvine   m   London m Erusseb


Mr. Thomas S. Tycz
April 12, 2004
Page 3 of 4


discuss the selection of graveyard orbit, and participated in the NASA study group
which created the orbital debris recommendation. However, by that time, the
satellites were already in construction and launches had commenced.
       The satellites were built with an expected lifespan of 10 years. Although
certain anomalies have recurred in the space environment, the satellites have
generally performed better than anticipated. As Globalstar is emerging from
financial reorganization, the Globalstar system is hoping to obtain a s much return
as possible from the current satellite constellation. The useful life of the satellites
will be preserved for as long as possible.
        Currently, the Globalstar system has satellite bus control over all 52
satellites. The two satellites residing a t 1514 kilometers are still under control even
though the communications payloads have failed. Bus failures can occur which
would result in complete loss of control, and preclude raising a satellite even up to
1514 kilometers. Also, as reported recently to the Commission, satellites can
experience anomalies which have the effect of uncontrolled expenditure of fuel
reserves.

      In summary, it is technically feasible to raise most of the satellites above
1514 kilometers. However, such a requirement would limit the extent to which the
Globalstar system can make use of the communications payloads on the satellites,
and that varies from satellite to satellite given the variations in fuel reserves.
Assuming the requested 1514 kilometer graveyard orbit height, we anticipate that
most of the satellites have sufficient fuel reserves to remain in use for a t least
another 20 years. That figure would drop if higher graveyard orbits were required.

       The section of the application pertaining to the request for additional emission
designators does not include the final output power specifications required by 47
C.F.R. f 25.1 14(c)(4)(ii), the overall link performance analysis required by 47 C.F.R.
J 25.114(d)(4), or the calculation ofpower flux density levels required by 47 C.F.R.
§ 25.114(d)(5). We cannot determine which frequency bands would be used for the
proposed transmission to aviation receivers, moreover, because the application does
not specify channel carrier frequencies.
      This application was filed as a modification application of the existing
Globalstar satellite constellation. The technical parameters of the satellite system
were detailed in the initial application filed on J u n e 3, 1991, amended on November
16, 1994, and on March 8, 1996. All the technical parameters noted above are
unchanged from the existing Globalstar system, including the output power
specifications and power flux density levels. For your convenience, we have
enclosed a chart of the channel frequencies for the L-band and S-band user links.


            Crowell & Moring LLP   m   www.crowell.com   Washington   m   Irvine   London   Brussels


Mr. Thomas S. Tycz
April 12, 2004
Page 4 of 4


       The link budgets for the simplex and Aviation 1 terminal are the same a s
those filed in the March 1996 amendment. The link budget for the Aviation 2
terminal is the same a s well except that it is a multiple carrier terminal (see MET
blanket license modification application filed by Globalstar USA, L.L.C. (File No.
SES-MOD-20021010-01758)), which means that there are multiple circuits. Each
separate circuit's link budget is the same as those for single circuit terminals.

       At the time the modification application was filed, Section 25.117(d) only
required submission of technical information that was changing. As noted in the
application (Exhibit C), LQL certified that the other technical parameters of the
satellites were unchanged with the addition of emission designators.

      If we can provide additional information, please let us know.

                                                       Respectfully submitted,

Of Counsel:

William F. Adler
                                                    O @ W
                                                       William D. Wallace
Vice President, Legal and
       Regulatory Affairs
Globalstar, L.P .
3200 Zanker Road
San Jose, CA 95134
(408) 933-4401

Enclosures

cc:   William Bell (by email)




              Crowell & Moring LLP   I   www.crowell.com   Washington   I   Irvine   London   Brussels


                               Engineering Certification


      I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I a m the technically qualified

person responsible for preparation of the engineering information contained in the

foregoing “Letter”; t h a t I a m familiar with the relevant sections of the FCC’s Rules,

the Globalstar Above 1GHz MSS system application as amended and the proposals

set forth in the referenced modification application; and that the information in the

foregoing Letter is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

      Signed this 8 t h day of April 2004.




                                  Paul A. Monte
                                  Director, Systems & Regulatory Engineering
                                  Globalstar L. P.


                                                                                TT Industries
                                                                               Engineered for life




To:            Mark Stephenson
From:          Mike Fudge
Date:          May 19,1999
Subject:       Graveyard Orbit Placement

Given the choice for Globalstar satellite graveyard orbits within the range 1300 km - 1500 km,
the best placement would be 1500 km.There are several reasons for this. First of all, given the
lack of appreciable drag upon satellites above 1000 km, the possible hazard of graveyarded
satellites decaying back down through the active constellation is moot. Second, Teledesic plans
to position their constellation at approximately 1375 km, thereby discouraging the choice of a
graveyard altitude below that of the active Globalstar constellation (1 414 km). The graveyard
altitude should be as high as possible given fuel constraints so as to maximize the distance
between the graveyarded satellites and the active constellation (mitigating the risk posed by the
fragmentation of a graveyarded satellite). The collision risk posed to satellites at 1500 km is
slightly lower than at 1460 - 1490 km; however, the general debris flux trend from 1300 km to
1500 km is fairly flat (excepting the hazard posed by trackable objects from 1400 - 1420 km.
For the reasons listed above, the preferred altitude for the graveyard orbit (within the range
given) is 1500 km.


                        Service Link Channel Assignments




    Table 1: User Frequencies at
     S-Band and L-Band for all
         Channels (MHz)
Ch No.        S-Band    L-Band
              forward   return
      1      2484.390    1610.730
      2      2485.620   161 1.960
      3      2486.850   1613.190
      4      2488.080   1614.420
      5      2489.310   1615.650
      6      2490.540   1616.880
      7      2491.770   1618.110
      8      2493.000   1619.340
      9      2494.230   1620.570
i
      10     2495.460     NIA
      I1     2496.690     NIA
      12     2497.920     NIA
      13     2499.150     NIA




                                                           Page 1/1



Document Created: 2004-04-20 15:21:26
Document Modified: 2004-04-20 15:21:26

© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC