MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Post-Mission Disposal (PMD) Validation of FCC's Ka-band NGSO Processing Round Participants

2021· article· en· W3170772065 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Celvi Lisy, Rohil Agarwal, Anargyros Kriezis, Olivia Seitelman, Regan Mah, Whitney Lohmeyer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpace Satellite Systems and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionSpace debrisTelecommunicationsGeostationary orbitCommunications satelliteSpacecraftComputer scienceSatelliteComputer securityAeronauticsAerospace engineeringEngineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) defines regulations that ensure satellite communications systems seeking access to the U.S. market will properly implement post-mission disposal (PMD) plans to reduce the risk of creating orbital debris. In March 2020, the FCC initiated a processing round for additional applications and petitions for non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) fixed-satellite service (FSS) operations in the 10.7 - 12.7 GHz, 12.75 - 13.25 GHz, 13.8 - 14.5 GHz, 17.7 - 18.6 GHz, 18.8 - 20.2 GHz, and 27.5 - 30 GHz bands. Ten NGSO FSS communications systems operators (EOS Defense Systems, Kepler Communications, Kuiper, Mangata, New Spectrum Satellite, O3b, OneWeb, SpaceX, Telesat, and Viasat) submitted applications. In Part 25 of the Commission's rules, particularly 47 C.F.R. ? 25.114(d)(14), the FCC defines key requirements to limit debris, including guidelines for post-mission disposal and the limitation of accidental explosions. Prior to approving an application for access to the U.S. market, the FCC assesses the compliance of each applicant's system with the Commission's Part 25.114(d)(14) rules. This paper analyzes and validates the PMD and orbital debris mitigation strategies of the ten NGSO FSS communication systems that filed applications in the FCC's March 2020 Processing Round in order to guarantee that adequate plans are in place to prevent the creation of orbital debris, and thus prevent harm to other spacecraft and humans. The methodology includes obtaining relevant information regarding the orbits and operational strategies of the systems from their submitted Technical Narratives and Schedule S reports, and performing PMD analysis validation using NASA's Debris Assessment Software (DAS) to confirm pertinent information such as deorbit duration and required delta-v (Δv) for deorbiting maneuvers. Nine of the ten systems provided statements on their orbital debris mitigation strategies, including identifying the agency or government's orbital debris guidelines with which their system will comply (NASA, UK, Canada, etc.), Several systems under the jurisdiction of foreign administrations, including One Web and 03b, did not provide orbital debris mitigation information as they stated they will follow their administration's orbital debris guidelines rather than the FCC's Part 25 rules pertaining to technical orbital debris showings. Three of the systems (EOS Defense Systems, O3b, Mangata) either stated that they will use a graveyard orbit or expect based on orbital altitude that they will not re-enter, whereas seven systems (Kepler, Kuiper, OneWeb, New Spectrum Satellites, SpaceX, Telesat and Viasat) either stated that they will perform deorbit and re-entry maneuvers or it is expected the spacecraft will naturally deorbit based on the low earth orbit (LEO) configuration. The analysis and validation of the PMD for each system is discussed in detail in this work, with the ultimate goal of aiding the FCC in evaluating the legitimacy of each applicant's approach and maintaining a sustainable space environment for the future.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpace Satellite Systems and ControlFrench-language works237,207