SpaceX STA Requests

OPPOSITION submitted by WorldVu Satellites Limited

SpaceX STA Requests Opposition

2019-10-17

This document pretains to SAT-STA-20190924-00098 for Special Temporal Authority on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATSTA2019092400098_1964856

                                                                Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
                                                                2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 100
                                                                Washington, D.C. 20006-6801
                                                                202.747.1900 main
                                                                202.747.1901 fax
                                                                www.sheppardmullin.com



                                                                Brian D. Weimer
                                                                202.747.1930 direct
                                                                bweimer@sheppardmullin.com
October 17, 2019

VIA IBFS

Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20554


Re:    Notice of Written Ex Parte
       Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, IBFS File Nos. SAT-STA-20190924-00098,
       SAT-MOD-20181108-00083, SAT-MOD-20190830-00087
       SpaceX Services, Inc., IBFS File Nos. SES-STA-20190925-01225 through -01234,
       -01242 through -01244

Dear Ms. Dortch:

       WorldVu Satellites Limited (“OneWeb”) hereby submits this letter to oppose the above-
referenced requests for special temporary authority (the “STA Requests”) filed by Space
Exploration Holdings, LLC and SpaceX Services, Inc. (collectively “SpaceX”). 1 The STA
Requests are a clear attempt by SpaceX to circumvent the Federal Communications
Commission’s (“Commission”) well-established review process for pending applications,
SpaceX’s second such effort this year. 2



1
 See, et. al., Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Request for Special Temporary Authority, IBFS
File No. SAT-STA-20190924-00098 (filed Sep. 24, 2019) (“STA Requests”).
2
 See Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Request for Special Temporary Authority, IBFS File
No. SAT-STA-20190405-00023 (filed Apr. 5, 2019); SpaceX Services, Inc., Request for Special
Temporary Authority, IBFS File Nos. SES-STA-20190405-00453, et. al. (filed Apr. 5, 2019);
see also Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Request for Special Temporary Authority, Grant,
IBFS File No. SAT-STA-20190405-00023 (May 5, 2019) (“STA Grant”); Space Exploration
Holdings, LLC, Request for Modification of the Authorization for the SpaceX NGSO Satellite
System, Order and Authorization, 34 FCC Rcd. 2526 (Apr. 26, 2019) (“SpaceX First
Modification Grant”).


Marlene H. Dortch
October 17, 2019
Page 2


        In the instant STA Requests, SpaceX attempts to bypass the Commission’s review
process by asking the Commission for STA to do exactly what it is requesting in a pending
modification application that is still in a comment cycle and, therefore, does not have a
completed public record. On August 30, SpaceX filed the Second Modification Application. 3
The Second Modification Application was placed on public notice on September 13, initial
comments from the public were due on October 15, and the full public comment cycle will not
be completed until mid-November. 4 Even before comments were due on the Second
Modification Application, SpaceX filed the STA Requests, seeking authority to launch satellites
by the end of October in accordance with the parameters of the Second Modification
Application. 5 The STA Requests demonstrate SpaceX’s utter disregard for the value of the
Commission’s legally-mandated process of hearing from the public and any affected parties
about concerns they might have with SpaceX’s “rapid iteration” and “test and discard”
philosophy reflected in the Second Modification Application. 6 As such, the Commission should
reject SpaceX’s attempt to shortcut the standard review of its pending space station Second
Modification Application by asking the Commission to issue a de facto authorization of the
Second Modification Application through STA before interested parties have even had the
opportunity to comment. 7

       Indeed, the record now developing with respect to the Second Modification Application
includes multiple submissions by non-geostationary, fixed-satellite service (“NGSO FSS”)

3
 See Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Application for Modification of Authorization for the
SpaceX NGSO Satellite System, IBFS File No. SAT-MOD-20190830-00087 (filed Aug. 30,
2019) (“Second Modification Application”).
4
 The SpaceX Second Modification Application was placed on public notice on September 13,
2019 and the comment cycle will not close until the middle of November 2019.
5
    STA Requests, Narrative at 1.
6
 See Petition to Deny or Defer of WorldVu Satellites Limited, IBFS File No. SAT-MOD-
20181108-00083 at 15 (filed Feb. 8, 2019).
7
 As a threshold matter, OneWeb recognizes that as a portion of the STA Requests SpaceX seeks
authority for launch and early operations and testing. As the Commission has stated, “[s]uch
operations have been granted through STAs routinely in the past for similar in-orbit (IOT)
operations.” STA Grant at 3. OneWeb has no objection to the grant of STA for these types of
operations. However, SpaceX also asks for STA to deploy its space stations in orbital locations
not currently authorized by the Commission, and only contemplated in the pending Second
Modification Application. OneWeb therefore clarifies that its objections are specifically to the
grant of STA for operation according to the parameters of the Second Modification Application.


Marlene H. Dortch
October 17, 2019
Page 3


operators highlighting very troubling issues that should stop any action on the STA Requests
before the Commission has conducted a complete review of the record. In particular, OneWeb
highlights three considerations for the Commission that strongly caution against premature grant
of the STA Requests:

     •   First, On October 15, 2019 Kepler Communications, Inc. (“Kepler”), an NGSO FSS
         market access grantee in the current Ku-/Ka-band processing round, filed a Petition to
         Defer or Deny detailing the substantial spectrum interference and orbital debris issues
         presented by the Second Modification Application. 8 Kepler demonstrates the potential
         for the modified SpaceX constellation to disrupt the provision of service to customers and
         highlights SpaceX’s alarming in-orbit failure rate.

             o OneWeb notes SpaceX’s in-orbit failure rate is currently surpassing metrics
               SpaceX had assured the Commission it would never reach—SpaceX has
               previously described failure rates of “10 or 5 percent as unacceptable, and even a
               rate of 1 percent” as “unlikely.” 9

             o In addition, SES Americom, Inc. and O3b Limited (“SES/O3b”) also filed a
               Petition to Defer the Second Modification Application, expressing serious
               concerns about SpaceX’s purported equivalent flux power density (“EPFD”)
               compliance and the Second Modification Application’s potential worsening of the
               NGSO interference environment. 10 Together, these Petitions demonstrate the
               significant, unresolved issues presented by the Second Modification Application,
               and the Commission should not act on the STA Requests until Commission
               review of the Second Modification Application is complete.

     •   Second, both Kepler and SES/O3b correctly point out that the Commission must exercise
         caution in reviewing the Second Modification Application in light of (i) SpaceX’s
         previously cavalier approach to the stakeholders who urged the Commission to carefully
         evaluate the potentially serious consequences of the SpaceX First Modification Grant and

8
 See Letter from Nickolas G. Spina, Director, Launch and Regulatory Affairs, Kepler
Communications Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, IBFS File Nos. SAT-LOA-
20161115-00118, et. al., (Oct. 15, 2019) (“Kepler Petitions”).
9
 Id. at 16. See also Letter from William M. Wiltshire, Counsel to SpaceX, to Jose P.
Albuquerque, Chief, Satellite Division, FCC, IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20161115-00118 at 4
(Apr. 20, 2017).
10
 See Petition to Deny or Defer of SES Americom, Inc. and O3b Limited, IBFS File No. SAT-
MOD-20190830-00087 (filed Oct. 15, 2019) (“SES/O3b Petition”).


Marlene H. Dortch
October 17, 2019
Page 4


          (ii) SpaceX’s grandiose ambitions to operate an NGSO constellation comprising more
          than 40,000 satellites. 11 The orbital debris and radiofrequency interference issues
          highlighted by Kepler are compelling and merit serious review by the Commission and
          key stakeholders in order to preserve the LEO environment and the substantial on-orbit
          investments made by other satellite operators. 12 Similarly, SES/O3b’s well-founded
          concerns that SpaceX is attempting to undermine the existing EPFD compliance regime
          must be addressed in order to avoid negatively impacting GSO operations and creating
          uncertainty for other NGSO FSS operators. 13

      •   Third, OneWeb agrees with Kepler that as a threshold matter, the Commission should
          address OneWeb’s pending Petition for Reconsideration of the SpaceX First Modification
          Grant before taking any action on the Second Modification Application or the STA
          Requests. 14 The OneWeb Petition for Reconsideration raises important issues that have
          direct bearing on the further changes SpaceX is seeking in the Second Modification
          Application. 15

        The serious concerns raised in connection with SpaceX’s First Modification Grant, as
well as those raised in connection with the Second Modification Application thus far, underscore

11
   See Jonathan O’Callaghan, SpaceX’s Application For 30,000 Extra Starlink Satellites Raises
New Concerns About Regulation, FORBES (Oct. 16, 2019 at 3:43pm),
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2019/10/16/spacex-accused-of-evading-rules-
with-proposal-for-30000-extra-starlink-satellites/#2d0694354f85.
12
   For example, SpaceX has already failed to live up to its assertion that “SpaceX satellites will
continue to perform conjunction avoidance” during the de-orbit period, as a “bug in [SpaceX’s]
on-call paging system” prevented SpaceX from avoiding a potential collision with an ESA
Aeolus satellite, forcing the Aeolus satellite to perform a collision avoidance maneuver. See
Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Application for Modification of Authorization for the SpaceX
NGSO Satellite System, IBFS File No. SAT-MOD-20181108-00083, Technical Attachment at
39 (Nov. 8, 2018); see also Jonathan O’Callaghan, SpaceX Declined To Move A Starlink Satellite
At Risk Of Collision With A European Satellite, Forbes (Sep. 2, 2019 at 3:55pm),
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2019/09/02/spacex-refused-to-move-a-starlink-
satellite-at-risk-of-collision-with-a-european-satellite/#671576541f62.
13
     See SES/O3b Petition at 3-6.
14
     Kepler Petitions at 2.
15
  See Petition for Reconsideration and Petition to Condition of WorldVu Satellites Limited,
IBFS File Nos. SAT-MOD-20181108-00083, et. al., (filed May 28, 2019).


Marlene H. Dortch
October 17, 2019
Page 5


why the Commission should review the merits of the Second Modification Application
thoroughly. The Commission should use this opportunity to remind applicants of the legitimacy
of its regulatory processes and not allow SpaceX to treat these well-established processes as
inconveniences to its business plan. To do otherwise would be to grant de facto approval of the
Second Modification Application through STA, and encourage future actors to disregard the
Commission’s clear and well-established process for requesting modifications such as these. 16

III.    CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, SpaceX has failed to justify the need for STA and any grant of
the STA Requests would undercut the Commission’s own review process. OneWeb respectfully
submits that the STA Requests should be denied pending Commission review of the Second
Modification Application.

Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned with any questions.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Brian D. Weimer

Brian D. Weimer
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP



cc:     William M. Wiltshire, Counsel to SpaceX
        Tom Sullivan (FCC)
        Jose Albuquerque (FCC)
        Karl Kensinger (FCC)
        Stephen Duall (FCC)




16
  Additionally, the Commission should consider the significant differences between terrestrial
and satellite STA. The nature of space is such that “temporary” authorization can become
permanent simply due to the lack of physical control over the satellites. For instance, SpaceX
promises to “relocate satellites” if the Second Modification Application is not approved.
However, as the results of the initial Starlink launch have already demonstrated, it is entirely
possible that problems may occur with the propulsion systems of the SpaceX satellites in
position under STA. If those satellites are unable to “relocate” and the Second Modification
Application is not approved, SpaceX’s satellites will nonetheless remain in the configuration of
the Second Modification Application until they begin to naturally deorbit.


                                                                        Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
                                                                        2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 100
                                                                        Washington, D.C. 20006-6801
                                                                        202.747.1900 main
                                                                        202.747.1901 fax
                                                                        www.sheppardmullin.com



                                  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Samuel Swoyer, hereby certify that on this 17th day of October 2019, a copy of the foregoing

letter is being sent via first class, U.S. Mail, postage paid, to the following:


Patricia Cooper
Vice President, Satellite Government Affairs
SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. &
SPACEX SERVICES, INC.
1155 F Street, N.W.
Suite 475
Washington, DC 20004

William M. Wiltshire
HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP
1919 M Street, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
Counsel to Space Exploration Holdings, LLC &
SpaceX Services, Inc.



/s/ Samuel Swoyer______________________
Samuel Swoyer



Document Created: 2019-10-17 16:58:55
Document Modified: 2019-10-17 16:58:55

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