Page 1 KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
October 15,
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street S.W.
Washington D.C. Re. Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, IBFS File Nos. SAT-LOA-20161115-00118,
SAT-MOD-20181108-00083, SAT-MOD-20190830-00087 and SAT-STA-2019092400098;
Kepler Communications Inc., IBFS File No. SAT-PDR-20161115-00114;
WorldVu Satellites Limited, IBFS File No. SAT-LOI-20160428-00041;
Telesat Canada, IBFS File No. SAT-PDR-20161115-
Dear Ms. Dortch:
Kepler Communications Inc. (Kepler) hereby submits this letter in association with several
concerns regarding the NGSO system authorized to Space Exploration Holdings LLC (SpaceX).
First, Kepler hereby submits a Petition to Reconsider the Order and Authorization (Order)1 issued
by the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) of SpaceX’s request to lower the
altitude of 1,584 of its satellites to 550 km (First SpaceX Modification).2 The Order did not
adequately address the concerns of commenters regarding the new orbital debris risk posed by the
First SpaceX Modification. Its overall assessment was self-limited due to the application of the
‘zero collision risk’ assumption, commonly applied to systems capable of propulsive
See Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, DA 19-342 (rel. Apr. 26, 2019) (“Order”).
See Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Request for Modification of the Authorization for the SpaceX NGSO Satellite
System, IBFS File No. SAT−MOD−20181108−00083 (Nov. 8, 2019).
October 15,
Kepler Communications Inc.
1 of 2Page 2 KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C
maneuvering.3 Recently, several apparent on-orbit failures of SpaceX’s first tranche of satellites
call into question the reasonable applicability of this assumption to the SpaceX modification. In
fact, concerns regarding the reliability of SpaceX’s rapidly developed Starlink satellites were
raised by commenters early on.4 Not only did the Commission fail to account for this, but the
assessment that it did perform did not account for worst-case scenarios. It also did not address
commenters concerns regarding potential service capacity loss (and therefore interference) that
would result from the execution of new avoidance maneuvers to avoid the SpaceX constellation.
Second, this reconsideration would render moot SpaceX’s more recent modification request to
increase the number of orbital planes at the 550 km altitude range from 24 to 72 (Second SpaceX
Modification).5 Therefore, Kepler consequently Petitions to Defer or Deny this second
modification. Third, Kepler Petitions to Defer or Deny SpaceX’s recent request for Special
Temporary Authority (STA) to launch its second tranche of satellites into the new orbital
configuration specified by its Second Modification before the end of October.6 The Commission
should address the Petitions to Reconsider of both Kepler and WorldVu Satellites Limited
(OneWeb) filed in relation to the First SpaceX Modification before any action is taken on both the
Second SpaceX Modification and the request for STA to launch SpaceX’s second tranche of
Commission rules require that systems provide an assessment of the probability of a satellite becoming a source of
debris as a result of large object collision. See 47 CFR § 25.114(d)(14)(iii). Current Commission practice considers
systems capable of propulsive maneuvering to have a zero or near-zero risk.
See WorldVu Satellites Limited, Petition to Deny or Defer of WorldVu Satellites Limited, IBFS File No. SAT-MOD20181108-00083 (Feb. 8, 2019) (“OneWeb Petition”) at 13.
See Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Application for Modification of Authorization
for the SpaceX NGSO Satellite System, IBFS File No. SAT-MOD-20190830-00087 (Aug. 30, 2019).
See Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Request for Special Temporary Authority, IBFS File No. SAT-STA20190924-00098 (Sep. 24, 2019).
October 15,
Kepler Communications Inc.
2 of 21Page 3 KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C
satellites. Fourth, Kepler maintains its position that its system was the first to meet the home
spectrum selection criteria under 47 C.F.R. §25.261.
October 15,
Kepler Communications Inc.
3 of 21Page 4 KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C
Contents:
Petition to Reconsider SpaceX’s First Modification ...................................................................... Petition to Defer or Deny SpaceX’s Second Modification ........................................................... Petition to Defer or Deny SpaceX’s Request for Special Temporary Authority to Launch its Second
Tranche of Satellites ..................................................................................................................... Kepler Retains First Claim To Home Spectrum ........................................................................... Conclusion ........................................................................................................................
October 15,
Kepler Communications Inc.
4 of 21Page 5 KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C
PETITION TO RECONSIDER SPACEX’S FIRST MODIFICATION
The Commission’s rules specify that a space station modification will be granted except
under certain circumstances,7 including if the grant “would not serve the public interest,
convenience, and necessity”. The Order conceded that “[i]f a modification would worsen the
interference environment, that would be a strong indication that grant of the modification would
not be in the public interest”. Kepler, OneWeb, and SES/O3b all provided substantial criticism of
SpaceX’s interference analyses.8 The Commission later concluded upon review that the
modification “does not present significant interference problems and is in the public interest”.This review inadequately addressed commenters interference concerns, especially with respect to
physical debris risk. Therefore, Kepler hereby submits this Petition to Reconsider the Order and
asks that the Commission’s properly reassess the risks associated with its grant of SpaceX’s First
Modification.
The Order did not address commenters’ interference concerns
Kepler is among a number of operators that petitioned to deny or defer the Modification
for concerns related to physical coordination and frequency interference.10 Kepler and others noted
See 47 C.F.R §25.117(d)(2).
See Kepler Communications Inc., Conditional Petition to Deny (Jan. 29, 2019); OneWeb Petition; SES/O3b Limited,
Comments of SES/O3b Limited (Feb. 2, 2019) (“Kepler Petition”); EchoStar Satellite Operating Corp., Hughes
Network Systems, LLC, and Intelsat, Reply of EchoStar Satellite Operating Corporation, Hughes Network Systems,
LLC, and Intelsat License LLC (Mar. 5, 2019); Commercial Smallsat Spectrum Management Association, Comments
and Petition to Defer (Jan. 29, 2019) (“CSSMA Petition”) on loss of service capacity due to greater frequency of
avoidance maneuvers. All comments were filed under IBFS File No. SAT-MOD-20181108-0008.
See Order at ¶ 11.
See IBFS File No. SAT-MOD-20181108-0008. Six operators and one satellite trade association filed petitions of
the SpaceX Modification. Three other operators also filed joint comments that were critical of the modification
(Echostar, Hughes, and Intelsat).
October 15,
Kepler Communications Inc.
5 of 21Page 6 KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C
that the increased level of conjunctions inevitably caused by the new SpaceX constellation could
notably interrupt their delivery of service (due to the fact that their satellites cannot perform an
avoidance maneuver and provide service simultaneously).11 Unless SpaceX assumes the
responsibility of all avoidance maneuvers, it is evident that this effect would directly “worsen the
interference environment” for existing operators. The Commission did not address this concern. If
SpaceX’s modification was granted on the premise that its propulsion reduces its collision risk to
zero, then the burden of collision avoidance fundamentally lies on shoulders of those propulsive
capabilities. Upon reconsideration of the Order, the Commission must therefore impose a
requirement on SpaceX to assume the burden of all avoidance maneuvers made as a result of its
Modification.
Kepler notes its use of non-propulsive satellites and the design of its constellation as a
whole did not need to consider a substantial execution of avoidance maneuvers. Given the change
introduced by SpaceX, and absent any further conditions on its authorization, Kepler would need
to fundamentally alter its constellation design just to meet the goals stated in its own authorization.
To account for the new interference, Kepler would be forced to consider either increasing the size
of its constellation or outfitting its satellites with propulsive capabilities. Both modifications would
require Kepler to incur significant financial and operational cost simply to accommodate SpaceX’s
proposed operations.
The Order did not address commenters’ debris concerns
See Kepler Petition at 5; CSSMA Comments at 4 - 5.
October 15,
Kepler Communications Inc.
6 of 21Page 7 KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C
In its modification, SpaceX provided a list of factors that would act to benefit its overall
orbital debris mitigation profile.12 However, the points raised did not on their own constitute an
‘analysis’ to the extent necessary to address the reasonable concerns of other operators. The
comments of Kepler, Planet, Astro Digital, Spire, OneWeb, and the CSSMA all highlighted
SpaceX’s failure to address the effects of its modification on the LEO environment.13 As the
CSSMA highlighted, SpaceX’s introduction of 1,584 satellites would effectively triple the number
of tracked satellites operating in the 400 – 600 km range.14 The CSSMA also pointed out flaws in
several of SpaceX’s listed factors, demonstrating that they were either ineffectual or invalid.Instead of answering these concerns, SpaceX dismissed most of the them outright and wholly
ignored other parts altogether.16 Kepler began physical coordination discussions with SpaceX
following the grant of the modification, but SpaceX has since stopped replying to Kepler’s followup correspondence.
Under the Commission’s current rules, satellites that are capable of active maneuvering
(i.e. are equipped with propulsion) are considered to have a collision risk with large objects of
zero, given that these spacecraft also meet a certain failure rate threshold. SpaceX relied on this
very assumption to meet the requirement to assess its orbital debris risk.17 Kepler does not dispute
that under nominal circumstances, SpaceX would indeed qualify for this assumption. However,
SpaceX’s 2019 Annual Report (filed on July 1, 2019) indicated that its first tranche of satellites
See First SpaceX Modification, Technical Information to Supplement Schedule S, at A.11.
See supra at note 10. See also CSSMA Petition, Technical Annex A-D.
See CSSMA Petition at 4.
See Id. at Technical Annex A-D.
See SpaceX, Consolidated Opposition to Petitions and Response to Comments of Space Exploration Holdings, LLC,
IBFS File No. SAT-MOD-20181108-00083 (Feb. 11, 2019).
See 47 CFR § 25.114(d)(14)(iii). See also supra at note 12.
October 15,
Kepler Communications Inc.
7 of 21Page 8 KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C
launched in May had already experienced a number of critical failures. 18 SpaceX reported that of its 60 satellites had experienced a total loss of communication (5%), and that 10 more had not
yet completed their expected orbit raise procedures. SpaceX has since filed three separate times
to extend its special temporary authority for carrying out these orbit raising procedures. 19 Each of
its STA filings state that SpaceX’s orbit raising authority must continue because “there are still
some satellites that have yet to reach their authorized altitude”. Current Starlink TLEs indicate that
at least six satellites are presently not in their nominal orbits (excluding two to account for those
that SpaceX has stated are being deorbited intentionally). Of these six, four satellites remain at an
appreciable distance (>10 km) from their target positions.20 Therefore, at least 7 of 60 satellites
(11.6%) appear to have experienced some kind of failure that affects their maneuverability. In
order to verify the actual potential for conjunctions, Kepler requests that SpaceX clarify for the
record how many satellites have had any issues, propulsive or otherwise. Furthermore, the
Commission should require SpaceX to report, prior to launch, the number of satellites whose
deployment plans will deviate from those described in SpaceX’s authorization, and the nature of
those deviations. Considering that the zero-risk assumption is predicated on the capability of
satellite system to maneuver, Kepler questions whether SpaceX’s use of the zero-risk assumption
remains valid at its present failure rate. To put this into perspective, 11.6% of SpaceX’s full 1,satellite deployment would represent 184 defunct objects – more than Kepler’s entire authorized
See Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Annual Report, IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20161115-00118 (July 1, 2019).
See Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Request for Extension of Special Temporary Authority, IBFS File Nos. SATSTA-20190717-00063 (Jul. 7, 2019), SAT-STA-20190815-00075 (Aug. 8, 2019), SAT-STA-20190917-00095 (Sep.
17, 2019).
See Space-Track satellite catalog at https://www.space-track.org.
October 15,
Kepler Communications Inc.
8 of 21Page 9 KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C
constellation.21 The debris risk is further amplified by the greater cross-sectional area and mass of
SpaceX’s satellites. Given that a significant portion of SpaceX’s first tranche of satellites appear
to have experienced issues that affect its ability to maneuver, the Commission’s application of the
‘zero’ collision risk assumption may, in this case, have served to harm the public interest.
The recent Orbital Debris NPRM noted that “[a] design or reliability flaw resulting in
malfunction of spacecraft during deployment or mission operations could result in a significant
number of non-functional spacecraft in an operational orbit, contributing to the orbital debris
population”.22 Unfortunately, this appears to be precisely what has happened. Arguably more
troubling is that this could have been avoided if the Commission had appropriately heeded
commenters pleadings. OneWeb issued an array of such warnings in its Petition, highlighting that
SpaceX’s “rapid iteration philosophy” and “test and discard” approach to its engineering is simply
too reckless to be employed in the delicate LEO orbit.23 OneWeb therefore asked the Commission
to “ensure [SpaceX’s] first-generation spacecraft satisfy appropriate and verifiable reliability
standards”24, stressing the importance to “inquire as to the design heritage and expected reliability
of SEH’s first-generation spacecraft to determine the continued validity of its prior concerns about
the reliability issues presented by SEH’s constellation”.25 OneWeb concludes its thought by
reminding the reader that because SpaceX is “the proposed operator of the largest NGSO
constellation by an order of magnitude, [it] cannot be allowed to avoid potentially serious
If placed in orbit today, such a group would represent the largest constellation by both mass and number (surpassing
even Planet, which has the greatest number of satellites presently in orbit at 140). See Planet, Planet FAQ, at
https://www.planet.com/faqs/ (accessed Oct. 15, 2019).
See Mitigation of Orbital Debris in the New Space Age, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 18-159 (rel. Nov.
19, 2018) (“Orbital NPRM”) at ¶ 42.
See OneWeb Petition at 15.
See Id. at 13.
See Id. at 19.
October 15,
Kepler Communications Inc.
9 of 21Page 10 KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C
reliability issues by simply relocating to an altitude that offers greater de-orbit redundancies”.Stakeholders predictions have become fact, with SpaceX generating significantly more debris with
a single launch than can be considered acceptable. Its continued operations without proving the
reliability of its systems is fundamentally inconsistent with U.S. leadership in space and basic
principles of orbital stewardship.
The Commission itself did solicit some additional information from SpaceX, requesting
that they “provide an estimate of the collision risk […] for a single satellite, assuming a propulsion
or other system failure that renders the satellite incapable of collision avoidance immediately
following orbital injection”.27 The Order considered this scenario – one where “failure occurs
immediately after launch of the satellite” – to be “worst-case”.28 This statement represents a serious
assessment error. Collision risk is in fact proportional to orbital lifetime and local density of
Resident Space Objects, both of which are far lower at SpaceX’s injection altitude. Moreover,
SpaceX did not even use its actual injection altitude of 440 km, but instead ran its risk assessment
at the much lower altitude of 350 km.29 To obtain a correct worst-case scenario, SpaceX should
run its risk assessment at its highest expected altitude (550 km in this case). In light of the
difficulties of SpaceX’s initial tranche, the Commission should also require SpaceX to evaluate
the risk of its constellation using its observed failure rate. That is, SpaceX should provide an
See Id. at 19 – 20.
See Commission Request, IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20161115-00118 (Feb. 26, 2019). The Commission concluded
that the information provided by SpaceX was sufficient to meet its assessment requirements.
See Order at ¶ 22. See also SpaceX Letter, Response to FCC Information Request, IBFS File No. SAT-MOD20181108-00083 (Mar. 13, 2019).
The only verifiable technical information available on the presently orbiting Starlink satellites was given in a SpaceX
press kit for their launch. URL: https://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/starlink_press_kit.pdf.
October 15,
Kepler Communications Inc.
10 of 21Page 11 KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C
estimate of the collision risk using NASA’s Debris Assessment Software for a constellation of defunct Starlink satellites at 550 km in their fully deployed configurations.
The presence of SpaceX’s constellation significantly impacts the orbital debris environment
Because Kepler’s system is not equipped with propulsion, Commission rules required that
it submit a comprehensive Orbital Debris Assessment Report (ODAR) as a condition of its
application for market access.30 This ODAR assessed the combined orbital debris risk of Kepler’s
full constellation of 140 CubeSat satellites.31 Kepler has undertaken a basic assessment to estimate
the impact of the 1,584 Starlink satellites on its own orbital debris risk profile. Using NASA’s
Orbital Debris Assessment Software and the techniques described in NASA’s Orbital Debris
Engineering Model 2000, it found that the introduction of these satellites to the 550 km region
caused its probability of collision with large objects to increase by a factor of 3.01x, inevitably
placing Kepler aggregate risk above the required threshold of 0.001. In fact, Kepler’s analysis
against the SpaceX constellation alone (excluding all other debris) still exceeded the threshold.
This finding at the very least hints at the scale of the impact SpaceX’s constellation will have on
the LEO environment if permitted to deploy. The current orbital debris rules were never designed
to account for modifications that could have a material impact on large-scale orbital debris
See Letter from Kepler Communications Inc., Kepler Orbital Debris Assessment Report (ODAR) For MULTUS
Filing, IBFS File No. SAT-PDR-20161115-00114 (Aug. 1, 2017). Kepler has since filed an update to this ODAR. See
infra at note 36.
The original ODAR assumed the use of a 3U CubeSat platform. Kepler later submitted a revised analysis to the
Commission to account for its planned expansion to a 6U CubeSat platform. See infra at note 36. Despite being
submitted on September 21, 2018, the Commission has yet to provide a decision on this matter. Kepler’s third satellite
is a 6U platform, and will be unable to provide its service in the US until such Commission action is taken. Kepler
openly asks why SpaceX’s modifications, which are both more extensive and were submitted later, have been
processed and granted in the intervening time.
October 15,
Kepler Communications Inc.
11 of 21Page 12 KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C
statistics. This is a prime example of how SpaceX’s reckless ambition strains the existing
regulatory framework, and the fair use of space. The Commission should treat its extraordinary
nature appropriately and require that SpaceX provide these analyses in lieu of the zero-collision
risk assumption. The Commission should act on this matter before granting any further permission
to launch new tranches of satellites to 550 km.
SpaceX has not provided clarification on the change of its bus size/mass
The launch of SpaceX’s first tranche of satellites saw a deployment of systems that deviate
substantially from the characteristics described in SpaceX’s authorizations to date. 32 The public
record does not reflect the completion of an updated ODAR that incorporates these changes. The
Commission should require SpaceX to provide clarification on the change of its bus size/mass,
such that the risk of their system can be properly assessed. Further, SpaceX must be transparent in
its reporting of all the challenges its satellites have experienced since launch, especially with
regards to propulsion systems. This information impacts the collision risk assessments of all
systems operating in the subject LEO environment.
SpaceX’s authorizations for its original constellation and its experimental Microsat system specified satellites with
an average area/mass ratio of 0.0400 m2/kg (calculated using a mass of 386 kg and a cross-sectional area that
incorporates two solar panels) and an orbital lifetime calculated with respect to their old altitude at 1,150 km. The
satellites that SpaceX recently placed into orbit at 550 km were not accompanied with an updated ODAR. The only
publicly available information on these satellites is a press kit that was released for the launch of the initial tranche,
which stated that the real systems have a significantly different mass (227 kg) and solar panel configuration. See Space
Exploration Holdings, LLC, Application for Approval for Orbital Deployment and Operating Authority for the SpaceX
NGSO Satellite System, IBFS File Nos. SAT-LOA-20161115-00118, SAT−LOA−20170726−00110, 33 FCC Rcd
3391 (2018). See Microsats 2a and 2b, ELS File No. 0298-EX-CN-2016.
October 15,
Kepler Communications Inc.
12 of 21Page 13 KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C
Waiver of requirement to file petition for reconsideration within 30 days of final
Commission action: §1.106(f)
In light of the notable challenges of SpaceX’s rushed deployment, the Commission should
review their assessment of SpaceX’s orbital debris risk and reconsider the grant of its Modification.
The Commission must perform a proper review, taking into account the rate of failures observed
in SpaceX’s system to date. Considering the timeliness of these events, Kepler hereby requests a
waiver of 47 CFR § 1.106(f) to allow that this Petition be filed after the 30-day period following
the publication of the Order. Considering the performance of SpaceX’s satellites, and for all the
reasons discussed in this Petition, the greater public interest fundamentally hinges on SpaceX’s
demonstration that its system will not threaten the health of LEO. The Commission must take this
opportunity to both perform a full analysis of the modified SpaceX system and correct the flaws it
made in its original assessment.
October 15,
Kepler Communications Inc.
13 of 21Page 14 KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C
PETITION TO DEFER OR DENY SPACEX’S SECOND MODIFICATION
No action should be taken on SpaceX’s Second Modification until all petitions to
reconsider SpaceX’s First Modification have been addressed. Furthermore, Kepler is unaware of
any ITU filing submitted by SpaceX that reflects the changes requested by its Second
Modification. Kepler notes however that SpaceX has recently submitted 20 separate ITU filings
that together describe an unprecedented deployment of 30,000 new satellites to the sub-600 km
LEO environment.33 The collision risks of such a constellation would be obviously untenable and
such filings in no way support SpaceX’s claim of striving for good faith coordination. As OneWeb
highlighted in its Petition, the fail-fast fail-often philosophy employed by SpaceX will, at the going
rate, destroy the viability of Low Earth Orbit.34 Kepler urges the Commission to consider these
facts in this assessment of yet another SpaceX modification.
It seems germane to stress that in addition to the First Modification, the Commission should
carefully assess this one as well. SpaceX states that its proposed increase of orbital planes “will
have no impact on the orbital debris mitigation characteristics of the Starlink constellation”.35 This
is not necessarily true, as an increase in total number of orbital planes could also increase the rate
SpaceX’s intra-constellation conjunctions. Before the Commission rules on this Modification, it
should strive to understand these, and any other potential consequences, in sufficient detail to
assuage reasonable public concern.
See ITU Space Network List, Information "as received" (Part-C) at https://www.itu.int/ITUR/space/asreceived/Publication/AsReceived (accessed Oct. 13, 2019). The filings include USASAT-NGSO-3W-2, 3W-1, -3V-2, -3V-1, -3U-2, -3U-1, -3T-3, -3T-2, -3T-1, -3S-3, -3S-2, -3S-1, -3R-3, -3R-2, -3R-1, -3Q, -3P, -3O, 3M and -3N.
See OneWeb Petition at 14 – 15. OneWeb discusses how SpaceX’s “rapid innovation” approach “may not be as
well suited to the crowded LEO operating environment where spacecraft can linger for years”.
See Second SpaceX Modification at 5.
October 15,
Kepler Communications Inc.
14 of 21Page 15 KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C
Kepler also asks the Commission to address its received requests in appropriate order. For
example, Kepler filed several ex parte notices with the Commission in 2018 to provide additional
clarity on the next phase of its constellation.36 These came complete with an updated ODAR, and
Kepler’s next satellite to be launched will utilize the architecture described therein. The
Commission has yet to update Kepler’s authorization with a ruling on this change, despite being
relatively simplistic and having been submitted over a year ago.
See Letter from Nickolas G. Spina to Marlene H. Dortch, IBFS File No. SAT-PDR-20161115-00114 (Sep. 21,
2018); Kepler Communications Inc., Constellation Collision Risk, IBFS File No. SAT-PDR-20161115-00114 (Sep.
21, 2018).
October 15,
Kepler Communications Inc.
15 of 21Page 16 KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C
PETITION TO DEFER OR DENY SPACEX’S REQUEST FOR SPECIAL TEMPORARY
AUTHORITY TO LAUNCH ITS SECOND TRANCHE OF SATELLITES
Kepler wishes to acknowledge SpaceX’s consistent and admirable efforts towards
maintaining the timeliness of their missions. However, its recent application for STA appears to
be an attempt to skip the same regulatory processing queue through which all other operators must
pass through.37 A grant of the requested STA would be inappropriate not only because it would
side-step the Commission’s review process for SpaceX’s Second Modification, but because the
core justification for the request does not meet the basic requirements stipulated by the
Commission’s rules. Section §25.120(b)(1) states that an STA may only be granted “upon a finding
that there are extraordinary circumstances requiring temporary operations in the public interest and
that delay in the institution of these temporary operations would seriously prejudice the public
interest. Convenience to the applicant, such as marketing considerations or meeting scheduled
customer in-service dates, will not be deemed sufficient for this purpose”. However, SpaceX seeks
immediate launch authorization of its second tranche of satellites for no reason other than to meet
its own internally chosen launch date at the end of October.
Further, this second STA request is particularly unique because of its demand for a ruling
prior to the date that the public commenting period will close on the Second SpaceX Modification.
In this way, a grant would enable SpaceX to orbit a set of new satellites into a new configuration
before the public has fully had the chance to comment on any of its proposed changes. Such an
See supra at note 6.
October 15,
Kepler Communications Inc.
16 of 21Page 17 KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C
action would plainly act against the public interest and allow SpaceX to effectively act as its own
de facto regulator.
October 15,
Kepler Communications Inc.
17 of 21Page 18 KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C
KEPLER RETAINS FIRST CLAIM TO HOME SPECTRUM
Kepler emphasizes that its preferred future is one where effective and practicable
coordination agreements can be reached with all its co-frequency peers in the Ku-band. Recent
letters by SpaceX and the NRAO have not provided new information that meaningfully challenges
Kepler’s claim to first selection of home spectrum.38 Further, Kepler notes that dialog with the
NSF (in its capacity to represent the NRAO) has concluded that there are no immediate
coordination concerns.
See NRAO, Comments of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, IBFS File No. SAT-LOI-20160428-(Aug. 2, 2019); Letter from David Goldman, Director of Satellite Policy, Space Exploration Technologies Corp. to
Marlene H. Dortch, IBFS File Nos. SAT-LOA-20161115-00118, SAT-MOD-20181108-00083 (Sep. 27, 2019).
October 15,
Kepler Communications Inc.
18 of 21Page 19 KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C
CONCLUSION
SpaceX has continued to inundate the regulatory pipeline with its frequent and
underdeveloped requests for major modifications. SpaceX’s citation of the Commission’s practice
of treating propulsion-equipped systems as having a large-object collision risk of zero has allowed
it to evade the essential work of proving the safety of its system. Although the general validity of
this assumption is being re-evaluated within the Commission’s ongoing review of its orbital debris
rules,39 SpaceX’s recent launch of its first tranche of satellites indicates that the health of its
propulsive systems has fallen short of reasonable expectations of reliability. The Commission
should reconsider its grant of SpaceX’s First Modification and ensure that all orbital and
interference concerns were properly and adequately accounted for. Further, as many commenters
requested, the Commission should require SpaceX to submit a comprehensive collision risk
analysis as a condition to the further continuation of their orbital deployments to 550 km. SpaceX’s
subsequent modifications should not be considered until these concerns have been addressed. It is
imperative that the Commission, the processing round entrants, and the public are adequately
informed of the precise impact SpaceX’s rushed movement to LEO will have on the orbital debris
environment. For these reasons, Kepler asks that the Commission take the actions described herein.
Sincerely,
/s/ Nickolas G. Spina
Nickolas G. Spina
Director, Launch and Regulatory Affairs
Kepler Communications Inc.
See Orbital NPRM.
October 15,
Kepler Communications Inc.
19 of 21Page 20 KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C
cc:
Jose Albuquerque, Chief, Satellite Division
Stephen Duall, Satellite Division
October 15,
Kepler Communications Inc.
20 of 21Page 21 KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Nickolas Spina, hereby certify that on October 15, 2019, a true and correct copy of this
document was sent via Canada Post, first class postage prepaid, to the following:
William M. Wiltshire
Paul Caritj
Harris, Wiltshire, & Grannis LLP
1919 M Street NW
Suite Washington, DC
Tim Hughes
Senior Vice President, Global
Business and Government Affairs
Space Exploration Technologies Corp.
1155 F Street NW
Suite Washington, DC
Counsel for SpaceX
Patricia Cooper
Vice President of Satellite Government Affairs
Space Exploration Technologies Corp.
1155 F Street NW
Suite Washington, DC
/s/ Nickolas Spina
Nickolas Spina
October 15,
Kepler Communications Inc.
21 of
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite 400
Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C2
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
October 15, 2019
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street S.W.
Washington D.C. 20554
Re. Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, IBFS File Nos. SAT-LOA-20161115-00118,
SAT-MOD-20181108-00083, SAT-MOD-20190830-00087 and SAT-STA-2019092400098;
Kepler Communications Inc., IBFS File No. SAT-PDR-20161115-00114;
WorldVu Satellites Limited, IBFS File No. SAT-LOI-20160428-00041;
Telesat Canada, IBFS File No. SAT-PDR-20161115-00108
Dear Ms. Dortch:
Kepler Communications Inc. (Kepler) hereby submits this letter in association with several
concerns regarding the NGSO system authorized to Space Exploration Holdings LLC (SpaceX).
First, Kepler hereby submits a Petition to Reconsider the Order and Authorization (Order)1 issued
by the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) of SpaceX’s request to lower the
altitude of 1,584 of its satellites to 550 km (First SpaceX Modification).2 The Order did not
adequately address the concerns of commenters regarding the new orbital debris risk posed by the
First SpaceX Modification. Its overall assessment was self-limited due to the application of the
‘zero collision risk’ assumption, commonly applied to systems capable of propulsive
See Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, DA 19-342 (rel. Apr. 26, 2019) (“Order”).
See Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Request for Modification of the Authorization for the SpaceX NGSO Satellite
System, IBFS File No. SAT−MOD−20181108−00083 (Nov. 8, 2019).
1
2
October 15, 2019
Kepler Communications Inc.
1 of 21
PDF Page 3
KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite 400
Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C2
maneuvering.3 Recently, several apparent on-orbit failures of SpaceX’s first tranche of satellites
call into question the reasonable applicability of this assumption to the SpaceX modification. In
fact, concerns regarding the reliability of SpaceX’s rapidly developed Starlink satellites were
raised by commenters early on.4 Not only did the Commission fail to account for this, but the
assessment that it did perform did not account for worst-case scenarios. It also did not address
commenters concerns regarding potential service capacity loss (and therefore interference) that
would result from the execution of new avoidance maneuvers to avoid the SpaceX constellation.
Second, this reconsideration would render moot SpaceX’s more recent modification request to
increase the number of orbital planes at the 550 km altitude range from 24 to 72 (Second SpaceX
Modification).5 Therefore, Kepler consequently Petitions to Defer or Deny this second
modification. Third, Kepler Petitions to Defer or Deny SpaceX’s recent request for Special
Temporary Authority (STA) to launch its second tranche of satellites into the new orbital
configuration specified by its Second Modification before the end of October.6 The Commission
should address the Petitions to Reconsider of both Kepler and WorldVu Satellites Limited
(OneWeb) filed in relation to the First SpaceX Modification before any action is taken on both the
Second SpaceX Modification and the request for STA to launch SpaceX’s second tranche of
3
Commission rules require that systems provide an assessment of the probability of a satellite becoming a source of
debris as a result of large object collision. See 47 CFR § 25.114(d)(14)(iii). Current Commission practice considers
systems capable of propulsive maneuvering to have a zero or near-zero risk.
4
See WorldVu Satellites Limited, Petition to Deny or Defer of WorldVu Satellites Limited, IBFS File No. SAT-MOD20181108-00083 (Feb. 8, 2019) (“OneWeb Petition”) at 13.
5
See Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Application for Modification of Authorization
for the SpaceX NGSO Satellite System, IBFS File No. SAT-MOD-20190830-00087 (Aug. 30, 2019).
6
See Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Request for Special Temporary Authority, IBFS File No. SAT-STA20190924-00098 (Sep. 24, 2019).
October 15, 2019
Kepler Communications Inc.
2 of 21
PDF Page 4
KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite 400
Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C2
satellites. Fourth, Kepler maintains its position that its system was the first to meet the home
spectrum selection criteria under 47 C.F.R. §25.261.
October 15, 2019
Kepler Communications Inc.
3 of 21
PDF Page 5
KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite 400
Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C2
Contents:
Petition to Reconsider SpaceX’s First Modification ...................................................................... 5
Petition to Defer or Deny SpaceX’s Second Modification ........................................................... 14
Petition to Defer or Deny SpaceX’s Request for Special Temporary Authority to Launch its Second
Tranche of Satellites ..................................................................................................................... 16
Kepler Retains First Claim To Home Spectrum ........................................................................... 18
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 19
October 15, 2019
Kepler Communications Inc.
4 of 21
PDF Page 6
KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite 400
Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C2
PETITION TO RECONSIDER SPACEX’S FIRST MODIFICATION
The Commission’s rules specify that a space station modification will be granted except
under certain circumstances,7 including if the grant “would not serve the public interest,
convenience, and necessity”. The Order conceded that “[i]f a modification would worsen the
interference environment, that would be a strong indication that grant of the modification would
not be in the public interest”. Kepler, OneWeb, and SES/O3b all provided substantial criticism of
SpaceX’s interference analyses.8 The Commission later concluded upon review that the
modification “does not present significant interference problems and is in the public interest”.9
This review inadequately addressed commenters interference concerns, especially with respect to
physical debris risk. Therefore, Kepler hereby submits this Petition to Reconsider the Order and
asks that the Commission’s properly reassess the risks associated with its grant of SpaceX’s First
Modification.
The Order did not address commenters’ interference concerns
Kepler is among a number of operators that petitioned to deny or defer the Modification
for concerns related to physical coordination and frequency interference.10 Kepler and others noted
7
See 47 C.F.R §25.117(d)(2).
See Kepler Communications Inc., Conditional Petition to Deny (Jan. 29, 2019); OneWeb Petition; SES/O3b Limited,
Comments of SES/O3b Limited (Feb. 2, 2019) (“Kepler Petition”); EchoStar Satellite Operating Corp., Hughes
Network Systems, LLC, and Intelsat, Reply of EchoStar Satellite Operating Corporation, Hughes Network Systems,
LLC, and Intelsat License LLC (Mar. 5, 2019); Commercial Smallsat Spectrum Management Association, Comments
and Petition to Defer (Jan. 29, 2019) (“CSSMA Petition”) on loss of service capacity due to greater frequency of
avoidance maneuvers. All comments were filed under IBFS File No. SAT-MOD-20181108-0008.
9
See Order at ¶ 11.
10
See IBFS File No. SAT-MOD-20181108-0008. Six operators and one satellite trade association filed petitions of
the SpaceX Modification. Three other operators also filed joint comments that were critical of the modification
(Echostar, Hughes, and Intelsat).
8
October 15, 2019
Kepler Communications Inc.
5 of 21
PDF Page 7
KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite 400
Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C2
that the increased level of conjunctions inevitably caused by the new SpaceX constellation could
notably interrupt their delivery of service (due to the fact that their satellites cannot perform an
avoidance maneuver and provide service simultaneously).11 Unless SpaceX assumes the
responsibility of all avoidance maneuvers, it is evident that this effect would directly “worsen the
interference environment” for existing operators. The Commission did not address this concern. If
SpaceX’s modification was granted on the premise that its propulsion reduces its collision risk to
zero, then the burden of collision avoidance fundamentally lies on shoulders of those propulsive
capabilities. Upon reconsideration of the Order, the Commission must therefore impose a
requirement on SpaceX to assume the burden of all avoidance maneuvers made as a result of its
Modification.
Kepler notes its use of non-propulsive satellites and the design of its constellation as a
whole did not need to consider a substantial execution of avoidance maneuvers. Given the change
introduced by SpaceX, and absent any further conditions on its authorization, Kepler would need
to fundamentally alter its constellation design just to meet the goals stated in its own authorization.
To account for the new interference, Kepler would be forced to consider either increasing the size
of its constellation or outfitting its satellites with propulsive capabilities. Both modifications would
require Kepler to incur significant financial and operational cost simply to accommodate SpaceX’s
proposed operations.
The Order did not address commenters’ debris concerns
11
See Kepler Petition at 5; CSSMA Comments at 4 - 5.
October 15, 2019
Kepler Communications Inc.
6 of 21
PDF Page 8
KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite 400
Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C2
In its modification, SpaceX provided a list of factors that would act to benefit its overall
orbital debris mitigation profile.12 However, the points raised did not on their own constitute an
‘analysis’ to the extent necessary to address the reasonable concerns of other operators. The
comments of Kepler, Planet, Astro Digital, Spire, OneWeb, and the CSSMA all highlighted
SpaceX’s failure to address the effects of its modification on the LEO environment.13 As the
CSSMA highlighted, SpaceX’s introduction of 1,584 satellites would effectively triple the number
of tracked satellites operating in the 400 – 600 km range.14 The CSSMA also pointed out flaws in
several of SpaceX’s listed factors, demonstrating that they were either ineffectual or invalid.15
Instead of answering these concerns, SpaceX dismissed most of the them outright and wholly
ignored other parts altogether.16 Kepler began physical coordination discussions with SpaceX
following the grant of the modification, but SpaceX has since stopped replying to Kepler’s followup correspondence.
Under the Commission’s current rules, satellites that are capable of active maneuvering
(i.e. are equipped with propulsion) are considered to have a collision risk with large objects of
zero, given that these spacecraft also meet a certain failure rate threshold. SpaceX relied on this
very assumption to meet the requirement to assess its orbital debris risk.17 Kepler does not dispute
that under nominal circumstances, SpaceX would indeed qualify for this assumption. However,
SpaceX’s 2019 Annual Report (filed on July 1, 2019) indicated that its first tranche of satellites
12
See First SpaceX Modification, Technical Information to Supplement Schedule S, at A.11.
See supra at note 10. See also CSSMA Petition, Technical Annex A-D.
14
See CSSMA Petition at 4.
15
See Id. at Technical Annex A-D.
16
See SpaceX, Consolidated Opposition to Petitions and Response to Comments of Space Exploration Holdings, LLC,
IBFS File No. SAT-MOD-20181108-00083 (Feb. 11, 2019).
17
See 47 CFR § 25.114(d)(14)(iii). See also supra at note 12.
13
October 15, 2019
Kepler Communications Inc.
7 of 21
PDF Page 9
KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite 400
Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C2
launched in May had already experienced a number of critical failures. 18 SpaceX reported that 3
of its 60 satellites had experienced a total loss of communication (5%), and that 10 more had not
yet completed their expected orbit raise procedures. SpaceX has since filed three separate times
to extend its special temporary authority for carrying out these orbit raising procedures. 19 Each of
its STA filings state that SpaceX’s orbit raising authority must continue because “there are still
some satellites that have yet to reach their authorized altitude”. Current Starlink TLEs indicate that
at least six satellites are presently not in their nominal orbits (excluding two to account for those
that SpaceX has stated are being deorbited intentionally). Of these six, four satellites remain at an
appreciable distance (>10 km) from their target positions.20 Therefore, at least 7 of 60 satellites
(11.6%) appear to have experienced some kind of failure that affects their maneuverability. In
order to verify the actual potential for conjunctions, Kepler requests that SpaceX clarify for the
record how many satellites have had any issues, propulsive or otherwise. Furthermore, the
Commission should require SpaceX to report, prior to launch, the number of satellites whose
deployment plans will deviate from those described in SpaceX’s authorization, and the nature of
those deviations. Considering that the zero-risk assumption is predicated on the capability of
satellite system to maneuver, Kepler questions whether SpaceX’s use of the zero-risk assumption
remains valid at its present failure rate. To put this into perspective, 11.6% of SpaceX’s full 1,584
satellite deployment would represent 184 defunct objects – more than Kepler’s entire authorized
18
See Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Annual Report, IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20161115-00118 (July 1, 2019).
See Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Request for Extension of Special Temporary Authority, IBFS File Nos. SATSTA-20190717-00063 (Jul. 7, 2019), SAT-STA-20190815-00075 (Aug. 8, 2019), SAT-STA-20190917-00095 (Sep.
17, 2019).
20
See Space-Track satellite catalog at https://www.space-track.org.
19
October 15, 2019
Kepler Communications Inc.
8 of 21
PDF Page 10
KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite 400
Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C2
constellation.21 The debris risk is further amplified by the greater cross-sectional area and mass of
SpaceX’s satellites. Given that a significant portion of SpaceX’s first tranche of satellites appear
to have experienced issues that affect its ability to maneuver, the Commission’s application of the
‘zero’ collision risk assumption may, in this case, have served to harm the public interest.
The recent Orbital Debris NPRM noted that “[a] design or reliability flaw resulting in
malfunction of spacecraft during deployment or mission operations could result in a significant
number of non-functional spacecraft in an operational orbit, contributing to the orbital debris
population”.22 Unfortunately, this appears to be precisely what has happened. Arguably more
troubling is that this could have been avoided if the Commission had appropriately heeded
commenters pleadings. OneWeb issued an array of such warnings in its Petition, highlighting that
SpaceX’s “rapid iteration philosophy” and “test and discard” approach to its engineering is simply
too reckless to be employed in the delicate LEO orbit.23 OneWeb therefore asked the Commission
to “ensure [SpaceX’s] first-generation spacecraft satisfy appropriate and verifiable reliability
standards”24, stressing the importance to “inquire as to the design heritage and expected reliability
of SEH’s first-generation spacecraft to determine the continued validity of its prior concerns about
the reliability issues presented by SEH’s constellation”.25 OneWeb concludes its thought by
reminding the reader that because SpaceX is “the proposed operator of the largest NGSO
constellation by an order of magnitude, [it] cannot be allowed to avoid potentially serious
21
If placed in orbit today, such a group would represent the largest constellation by both mass and number (surpassing
even Planet, which has the greatest number of satellites presently in orbit at 140). See Planet, Planet FAQ, at
https://www.planet.com/faqs/ (accessed Oct. 15, 2019).
22
See Mitigation of Orbital Debris in the New Space Age, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 18-159 (rel. Nov.
19, 2018) (“Orbital NPRM”) at ¶ 42.
23
See OneWeb Petition at 15.
24
See Id. at 13.
25
See Id. at 19.
October 15, 2019
Kepler Communications Inc.
9 of 21
PDF Page 11
KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite 400
Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C2
reliability issues by simply relocating to an altitude that offers greater de-orbit redundancies”.26
Stakeholders predictions have become fact, with SpaceX generating significantly more debris with
a single launch than can be considered acceptable. Its continued operations without proving the
reliability of its systems is fundamentally inconsistent with U.S. leadership in space and basic
principles of orbital stewardship.
The Commission itself did solicit some additional information from SpaceX, requesting
that they “provide an estimate of the collision risk […] for a single satellite, assuming a propulsion
or other system failure that renders the satellite incapable of collision avoidance immediately
following orbital injection”.27 The Order considered this scenario – one where “failure occurs
immediately after launch of the satellite” – to be “worst-case”.28 This statement represents a serious
assessment error. Collision risk is in fact proportional to orbital lifetime and local density of
Resident Space Objects, both of which are far lower at SpaceX’s injection altitude. Moreover,
SpaceX did not even use its actual injection altitude of 440 km, but instead ran its risk assessment
at the much lower altitude of 350 km.29 To obtain a correct worst-case scenario, SpaceX should
run its risk assessment at its highest expected altitude (550 km in this case). In light of the
difficulties of SpaceX’s initial tranche, the Commission should also require SpaceX to evaluate
the risk of its constellation using its observed failure rate. That is, SpaceX should provide an
See Id. at 19 – 20.
See Commission Request, IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20161115-00118 (Feb. 26, 2019). The Commission concluded
that the information provided by SpaceX was sufficient to meet its assessment requirements.
28
See Order at ¶ 22. See also SpaceX Letter, Response to FCC Information Request, IBFS File No. SAT-MOD20181108-00083 (Mar. 13, 2019).
29
The only verifiable technical information available on the presently orbiting Starlink satellites was given in a SpaceX
press kit for their launch. URL: https://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/starlink_press_kit.pdf.
26
27
October 15, 2019
Kepler Communications Inc.
10 of 21
PDF Page 12
KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite 400
Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C2
estimate of the collision risk using NASA’s Debris Assessment Software for a constellation of 184
defunct Starlink satellites at 550 km in their fully deployed configurations.
The presence of SpaceX’s constellation significantly impacts the orbital debris environment
Because Kepler’s system is not equipped with propulsion, Commission rules required that
it submit a comprehensive Orbital Debris Assessment Report (ODAR) as a condition of its
application for market access.30 This ODAR assessed the combined orbital debris risk of Kepler’s
full constellation of 140 CubeSat satellites.31 Kepler has undertaken a basic assessment to estimate
the impact of the 1,584 Starlink satellites on its own orbital debris risk profile. Using NASA’s
Orbital Debris Assessment Software and the techniques described in NASA’s Orbital Debris
Engineering Model 2000, it found that the introduction of these satellites to the 550 km region
caused its probability of collision with large objects to increase by a factor of 3.01x, inevitably
placing Kepler aggregate risk above the required threshold of 0.001. In fact, Kepler’s analysis
against the SpaceX constellation alone (excluding all other debris) still exceeded the threshold.
This finding at the very least hints at the scale of the impact SpaceX’s constellation will have on
the LEO environment if permitted to deploy. The current orbital debris rules were never designed
to account for modifications that could have a material impact on large-scale orbital debris
30
See Letter from Kepler Communications Inc., Kepler Orbital Debris Assessment Report (ODAR) For MULTUS
Filing, IBFS File No. SAT-PDR-20161115-00114 (Aug. 1, 2017). Kepler has since filed an update to this ODAR. See
infra at note 36.
31
The original ODAR assumed the use of a 3U CubeSat platform. Kepler later submitted a revised analysis to the
Commission to account for its planned expansion to a 6U CubeSat platform. See infra at note 36. Despite being
submitted on September 21, 2018, the Commission has yet to provide a decision on this matter. Kepler’s third satellite
is a 6U platform, and will be unable to provide its service in the US until such Commission action is taken. Kepler
openly asks why SpaceX’s modifications, which are both more extensive and were submitted later, have been
processed and granted in the intervening time.
October 15, 2019
Kepler Communications Inc.
11 of 21
PDF Page 13
KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite 400
Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C2
statistics. This is a prime example of how SpaceX’s reckless ambition strains the existing
regulatory framework, and the fair use of space. The Commission should treat its extraordinary
nature appropriately and require that SpaceX provide these analyses in lieu of the zero-collision
risk assumption. The Commission should act on this matter before granting any further permission
to launch new tranches of satellites to 550 km.
SpaceX has not provided clarification on the change of its bus size/mass
The launch of SpaceX’s first tranche of satellites saw a deployment of systems that deviate
substantially from the characteristics described in SpaceX’s authorizations to date. 32 The public
record does not reflect the completion of an updated ODAR that incorporates these changes. The
Commission should require SpaceX to provide clarification on the change of its bus size/mass,
such that the risk of their system can be properly assessed. Further, SpaceX must be transparent in
its reporting of all the challenges its satellites have experienced since launch, especially with
regards to propulsion systems. This information impacts the collision risk assessments of all
systems operating in the subject LEO environment.
SpaceX’s authorizations for its original constellation and its experimental Microsat system specified satellites with
an average area/mass ratio of 0.0400 m2/kg (calculated using a mass of 386 kg and a cross-sectional area that
incorporates two solar panels) and an orbital lifetime calculated with respect to their old altitude at 1,150 km. The
satellites that SpaceX recently placed into orbit at 550 km were not accompanied with an updated ODAR. The only
publicly available information on these satellites is a press kit that was released for the launch of the initial tranche,
which stated that the real systems have a significantly different mass (227 kg) and solar panel configuration. See Space
Exploration Holdings, LLC, Application for Approval for Orbital Deployment and Operating Authority for the SpaceX
NGSO Satellite System, IBFS File Nos. SAT-LOA-20161115-00118, SAT−LOA−20170726−00110, 33 FCC Rcd
3391 (2018). See Microsats 2a and 2b, ELS File No. 0298-EX-CN-2016.
32
October 15, 2019
Kepler Communications Inc.
12 of 21
PDF Page 14
KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite 400
Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C2
Waiver of requirement to file petition for reconsideration within 30 days of final
Commission action: §1.106(f)
In light of the notable challenges of SpaceX’s rushed deployment, the Commission should
review their assessment of SpaceX’s orbital debris risk and reconsider the grant of its Modification.
The Commission must perform a proper review, taking into account the rate of failures observed
in SpaceX’s system to date. Considering the timeliness of these events, Kepler hereby requests a
waiver of 47 CFR § 1.106(f) to allow that this Petition be filed after the 30-day period following
the publication of the Order. Considering the performance of SpaceX’s satellites, and for all the
reasons discussed in this Petition, the greater public interest fundamentally hinges on SpaceX’s
demonstration that its system will not threaten the health of LEO. The Commission must take this
opportunity to both perform a full analysis of the modified SpaceX system and correct the flaws it
made in its original assessment.
October 15, 2019
Kepler Communications Inc.
13 of 21
PDF Page 15
KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite 400
Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C2
PETITION TO DEFER OR DENY SPACEX’S SECOND MODIFICATION
No action should be taken on SpaceX’s Second Modification until all petitions to
reconsider SpaceX’s First Modification have been addressed. Furthermore, Kepler is unaware of
any ITU filing submitted by SpaceX that reflects the changes requested by its Second
Modification. Kepler notes however that SpaceX has recently submitted 20 separate ITU filings
that together describe an unprecedented deployment of 30,000 new satellites to the sub-600 km
LEO environment.33 The collision risks of such a constellation would be obviously untenable and
such filings in no way support SpaceX’s claim of striving for good faith coordination. As OneWeb
highlighted in its Petition, the fail-fast fail-often philosophy employed by SpaceX will, at the going
rate, destroy the viability of Low Earth Orbit.34 Kepler urges the Commission to consider these
facts in this assessment of yet another SpaceX modification.
It seems germane to stress that in addition to the First Modification, the Commission should
carefully assess this one as well. SpaceX states that its proposed increase of orbital planes “will
have no impact on the orbital debris mitigation characteristics of the Starlink constellation”.35 This
is not necessarily true, as an increase in total number of orbital planes could also increase the rate
SpaceX’s intra-constellation conjunctions. Before the Commission rules on this Modification, it
should strive to understand these, and any other potential consequences, in sufficient detail to
assuage reasonable public concern.
33
See ITU Space Network List, Information "as received" (Part-C) at https://www.itu.int/ITUR/space/asreceived/Publication/AsReceived (accessed Oct. 13, 2019). The filings include USASAT-NGSO-3W-2, 3W-1, -3V-2, -3V-1, -3U-2, -3U-1, -3T-3, -3T-2, -3T-1, -3S-3, -3S-2, -3S-1, -3R-3, -3R-2, -3R-1, -3Q, -3P, -3O, 3M and -3N.
34
See OneWeb Petition at 14 – 15. OneWeb discusses how SpaceX’s “rapid innovation” approach “may not be as
well suited to the crowded LEO operating environment where spacecraft can linger for years”.
35
See Second SpaceX Modification at 5.
October 15, 2019
Kepler Communications Inc.
14 of 21
PDF Page 16
KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite 400
Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C2
Kepler also asks the Commission to address its received requests in appropriate order. For
example, Kepler filed several ex parte notices with the Commission in 2018 to provide additional
clarity on the next phase of its constellation.36 These came complete with an updated ODAR, and
Kepler’s next satellite to be launched will utilize the architecture described therein. The
Commission has yet to update Kepler’s authorization with a ruling on this change, despite being
relatively simplistic and having been submitted over a year ago.
36
See Letter from Nickolas G. Spina to Marlene H. Dortch, IBFS File No. SAT-PDR-20161115-00114 (Sep. 21,
2018); Kepler Communications Inc., Constellation Collision Risk, IBFS File No. SAT-PDR-20161115-00114 (Sep.
21, 2018).
October 15, 2019
Kepler Communications Inc.
15 of 21
PDF Page 17
KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite 400
Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C2
PETITION TO DEFER OR DENY SPACEX’S REQUEST FOR SPECIAL TEMPORARY
AUTHORITY TO LAUNCH ITS SECOND TRANCHE OF SATELLITES
Kepler wishes to acknowledge SpaceX’s consistent and admirable efforts towards
maintaining the timeliness of their missions. However, its recent application for STA appears to
be an attempt to skip the same regulatory processing queue through which all other operators must
pass through.37 A grant of the requested STA would be inappropriate not only because it would
side-step the Commission’s review process for SpaceX’s Second Modification, but because the
core justification for the request does not meet the basic requirements stipulated by the
Commission’s rules. Section §25.120(b)(1) states that an STA may only be granted “upon a finding
that there are extraordinary circumstances requiring temporary operations in the public interest and
that delay in the institution of these temporary operations would seriously prejudice the public
interest. Convenience to the applicant, such as marketing considerations or meeting scheduled
customer in-service dates, will not be deemed sufficient for this purpose”. However, SpaceX seeks
immediate launch authorization of its second tranche of satellites for no reason other than to meet
its own internally chosen launch date at the end of October.
Further, this second STA request is particularly unique because of its demand for a ruling
prior to the date that the public commenting period will close on the Second SpaceX Modification.
In this way, a grant would enable SpaceX to orbit a set of new satellites into a new configuration
before the public has fully had the chance to comment on any of its proposed changes. Such an
37
See supra at note 6.
October 15, 2019
Kepler Communications Inc.
16 of 21
PDF Page 18
KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite 400
Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C2
action would plainly act against the public interest and allow SpaceX to effectively act as its own
de facto regulator.
October 15, 2019
Kepler Communications Inc.
17 of 21
PDF Page 19
KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite 400
Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C2
KEPLER RETAINS FIRST CLAIM TO HOME SPECTRUM
Kepler emphasizes that its preferred future is one where effective and practicable
coordination agreements can be reached with all its co-frequency peers in the Ku-band. Recent
letters by SpaceX and the NRAO have not provided new information that meaningfully challenges
Kepler’s claim to first selection of home spectrum.38 Further, Kepler notes that dialog with the
NSF (in its capacity to represent the NRAO) has concluded that there are no immediate
coordination concerns.
38
See NRAO, Comments of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, IBFS File No. SAT-LOI-20160428-00041
(Aug. 2, 2019); Letter from David Goldman, Director of Satellite Policy, Space Exploration Technologies Corp. to
Marlene H. Dortch, IBFS File Nos. SAT-LOA-20161115-00118, SAT-MOD-20181108-00083 (Sep. 27, 2019).
October 15, 2019
Kepler Communications Inc.
18 of 21
PDF Page 20
KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite 400
Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C2
CONCLUSION
SpaceX has continued to inundate the regulatory pipeline with its frequent and
underdeveloped requests for major modifications. SpaceX’s citation of the Commission’s practice
of treating propulsion-equipped systems as having a large-object collision risk of zero has allowed
it to evade the essential work of proving the safety of its system. Although the general validity of
this assumption is being re-evaluated within the Commission’s ongoing review of its orbital debris
rules,39 SpaceX’s recent launch of its first tranche of satellites indicates that the health of its
propulsive systems has fallen short of reasonable expectations of reliability. The Commission
should reconsider its grant of SpaceX’s First Modification and ensure that all orbital and
interference concerns were properly and adequately accounted for. Further, as many commenters
requested, the Commission should require SpaceX to submit a comprehensive collision risk
analysis as a condition to the further continuation of their orbital deployments to 550 km. SpaceX’s
subsequent modifications should not be considered until these concerns have been addressed. It is
imperative that the Commission, the processing round entrants, and the public are adequately
informed of the precise impact SpaceX’s rushed movement to LEO will have on the orbital debris
environment. For these reasons, Kepler asks that the Commission take the actions described herein.
Sincerely,
/s/ Nickolas G. Spina
Nickolas G. Spina
Director, Launch and Regulatory Affairs
Kepler Communications Inc.
39
See Orbital NPRM.
October 15, 2019
Kepler Communications Inc.
19 of 21
PDF Page 21
KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite 400
Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C2
cc:
Jose Albuquerque, Chief, Satellite Division
Stephen Duall, Satellite Division
October 15, 2019
Kepler Communications Inc.
20 of 21
PDF Page 22
KEPLER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
196 Spadina Avenue, Suite 400
Toronto, ON Canada
M5T 2C2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Nickolas Spina, hereby certify that on October 15, 2019, a true and correct copy of this
document was sent via Canada Post, first class postage prepaid, to the following:
William M. Wiltshire
Paul Caritj
Harris, Wiltshire, & Grannis LLP
1919 M Street NW
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
Tim Hughes
Senior Vice President, Global
Business and Government Affairs
Space Exploration Technologies Corp.
1155 F Street NW
Suite 475
Washington, DC 20004
Counsel for SpaceX
Patricia Cooper
Vice President of Satellite Government Affairs
Space Exploration Technologies Corp.
1155 F Street NW
Suite 475
Washington, DC 20004
/s/ Nickolas Spina
Nickolas Spina
October 15, 2019
Kepler Communications Inc.
21 of 21
Back to 
