Interference analysis with respect to

compliance with Rules of Procedure No. 9.27

1. Comparison between Original parameters and Modified parameters

Table 1 below gives basic characteristics used in analysis of potential increase of characteristics.

Table 1. Comparison between modified parameters and originally filed parameters

Parameter Originally filed Proposed for modification
Orbit altitude, km 2000 650
Orbit inclination, degrees 89 96
Number of satellites 28 in 4 orbital planes 28 in 7 orbital planes
Maximum power spectral density
in 1 Hz averaged over 4 kHz,
dBW/Hz
1980-2025 MHz -19 for earth station RTU 1 No change
-24.8 for earth station RTU 2 No change
-36.3 for new earth station RTU 3
2170-2200 MHz -15 -19
5150-5250 MHz No change No change
7025-7075 MHz -57.8 -74.8
Earth station antenna maximum
gain in uplink beams, dBi
1980-2025 MHz -2.8 for earth station RTU 1 No change
(Non-directional)
3 for earth station RTU 2
No change
(Non-directional)

14 for new earth station RTU 3

(AP8)
5150-5250 MHz No change No change
Space station antenna maximum
gain downlink beams, dBi
2170-2200 MHz 17.8 11

7025-7075 MHz 7 14

New transmitting space station antenna pattern could be presented in numerical formula format
as follows:
Space station antenna pattern
2170-2200 MHz REC1528, LEO type
 7025-7075 MHz

To allow better antenna performance, both satellite antenna patterns and earth station antenna
patterns were modified. Figures below show satellite antenna patterns.

Fig. 1
 Fig. 2

Resulting EIRP Mask are produced below for analysis.

16

14

Modified EIRP Mask in 1980-2025 MHz

12

Original EIRP Mask in 1980-2025 MHz

10
EIRP, dBW/4 kHz

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Off-axis angle

Fig. 3
 45

40
Modified EIRP Mask in 2170-2200 MHz

35 Original EIRP Mask in 2170-2200 MHz

30
EIRP, dBW/4 kHz

25

20

15

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Off-axis angle

Fig. 4

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Modified EIRP Mask in 7025-7075 MHz

-10

Original EIRP Mask in 7025-7075 MHz

-20
EIRP, dBW/4 kHz

-30

-40

-50

-60
Off-axis angle

Fig. 5
As it could be seen from the figures above, modified parameters provide significant decrease
over uplink and downlink EIRP. Modified uplink EIRP is maintained at the lower level
everywhere in orbit between 0 and 35786 km altitude.

2. Analysis
Frequency assignments of SIRION-1 are subject to coordination under Nos. 9.12, 9.12A and
9.14.
According to the Rules of Procedures under No. 9.27, taking into account that for these
coordination provisions only frequency overlap is used to trigger coordination, the modified part
of the network will need to effect coordination with respect to space networks that are to be
taken into account for coordination:
a) networks with “2D-Date” 2 before D1 3;
b) networks with “2D-Date” between D1 and D2 4, where the nature of the change is such as to
increase the interference to or from, as the case may be, the assignments of these networks.
According to paragraph 2.3.1 where the coordination requirements of the modification involve
any network under b) above, the modified assignments will have D2 as their “2D-Date”.
Otherwise, they will retain D1 as their “2D-Date”.
To fulfill these with a view of maintaining original date of receipt the following principles are
applied in analysis:
1. SIRION-1 is coordinating with the list of networks with “2D-Date” before D1.
2. With respect to GSO networks worst-case EPFD analysis is provided to demonstrate that
modification would not increase interference to GSO networks between D1 and D2.
3. With respect to non-GSO networks dynamic I/N analysis is provided to demonstrate that
modification would not increase interference to other non-GSO systems between D1 and
D2.
4. Dynamic downlink PFD analysis is carried out in order to demonstrate that downlink
transmission would be significantly lower in modification to provide further assurance
that there is no increase of interference to all potentially affected services, including those
for which no coordination requirement is established.
5. With regards to interference received from networks and systems between D1 and D2, as
stipulated in Section 6 of Radiocommunication Bureau Director’s Report to Radio
Regulations Board (Doc. RRB17-2/3 rev.1), this Administration wish to commit to not
requiring any more protection from other non-GSO systems or GSO networks than that
required for the original parameters.
Provided analysis follows the guidance given in Section 6 of Radiocommunication Bureau
Director’s Report to Radio Regulations Board (Doc. RRB17-2/3 rev.1). That is in the absence of
appropriate criteria or calculation methods to verify that there is no increase of interference or
protection, the Bureau will thoroughly study the technical justifications provided by the notifying
administration to make its finding and publish them to ensure the transparency of the process.
Such justifications may be based on static and dynamic interference assessments. For the later
one, calculation may be e.g. in the form of a cumulative distribution function of the interference
level, expressed as an interference-to-noise (I/N) ratio for varying percentages of time and
locations into the subsequently filed non-GSO FSS systems.

2 The “2D-Date” is the date from which an assignment is taken into account as defined in § 1 e) of Appendix 5.
3 D1 is the original “2D-Date” of the network undergoing modification.
4 D2 is the date of receipt of request for modification. Concerning the date of receipt, see the Rule of Procedure on
Receivability.
At the same time, existing tools available to the Bureau such as EPFD Validation Software was
used to provide description of results of analysis.

3. Dynamic PFD analysis

The purpose of this analysis is to provide statistical envelope of PFD-level produced by
modification.
Following assumptions are used:
1. PFD calculated for worst-case location on earth.
2. Each satellite is constantly transmitting.

Statistics above was generated for worst-case locations:

Modified constellation:

Lat=83.90625 Lon=72.57813
Original constellation:

Lat=88.67188 Lon=64.92188
Statistics above was generated for worst-case locations:
Modified constellation:
Lat=83.90625 Lon=16.25
Original constellation:
Lat=88.75 Lon=75.07813
It could be seen that modified constellation provides more than 15 dB advantage in a long-term,
while keeping maximum PFD level below the one produced by original constellation.
Dynamic range of interference level is improved significantly which would help to establish
sharing conditions universally with any service involved.

4. Assessment of modification with respect to GSO networks

4.1. Theoretical consideration
Decrease of orbit attitude would affect downlink interference, unless it is compensated by
decrease of EIRP mask of downlink transmission.
Consideration of static interference defines that such decrease should correspond to:

EIRP masks as presented in Figures 5 and 6 at least 10 dB decrease in satellite transmit EIRP.
Situation is different with consideration of statistical nature of interference.
Analysis of GSO networks submitted to ITU after SIRION-1 submission, show that about 50%
of different earth station due to nature of service (MSS) would employ non-directional antenna
pattern.
For these type of earth stations, in order to maintain the same level of probability of I/N,
decreasing EIRP level to the required level would be sufficient. The level of interference would
have the same statistical nature as in PFD analysis above, since basically there is no receiving
antenna discrimination.
For other earth stations, including those in 7025-7075 MHz which employ directional antenna
patterns (most of them being referred to REC-465-5 or REC-580-6) the situation would be
changing especially when non-GSO satellite is crossing main beam of receiving antenna.
In this case it is important to assess probability of such events when the satellite is transmitting
within the main-lobe of antenna.
It should be noted that while orbit altitude is decreased, the number of satellites is kept
unchanged. This would significantly decrease visibility statistics of non-GSO constellation.
Non-GSO visibility statistics could be found using Recommendation ITU-R S. 1257-1. The
method in this recommendation is used in calculating the probability to find a satellite of a
constellation in a circular or rectangular area (azimuth/elevation or latitude/longitude). A circular
area may be satellite earth station antenna main beam or side lobe area.
Calculation conducted in accordance with this recommendation shows the following function of
orbit altitude and probability of locating the satellite within the main be of antenna.

Probability of any NonGSO satellite visibility in a main beam of victim earth station
0.0012

0.001
Probability, %

0.0008

Altitude_NGSS( y)

0.0006

0.0004

0.0002
1000 2000 3000
y
Orbit altitude, km

For the same number of satellites in constellation the probability of locating satellite in orbit at
650 km is almost two times less that for satellite in orbit at 2000 km.
This would correspond to high level of I/N at much shorter periods.
Statistically, with the given assumption of decreased EIRP, and the number of satellites the
interference potential would not be increasing.
This conclusion concurs with the similar conclusion in Recommendation S. 1503-2 which is that
a low angular velocity (corresponding to orbit altitude of 2000 km) will result in higher
likelihoods of interference. Therefore, lower altitude is increasing angular velocity of the
satellites and further provide the benefit for sharing.
For the uplink interference, provided that, due to decrease of altitude, a visibility statistic will be
decreasing as well, the total transmission time of single earth station will be shorter and thus the
interference duration.
Aggregate effect of transmissions of multiple co-frequency earth stations would not be changing
because of the use of FDMA-TDMA transmissions and expectation that the number of earth
station would be specific to the market requirements and the system implementation.
4.2. Statistical analysis
Because of the great number of GSO networks submitted in 2013-2017, analysis with respect to
each of the networks is quite complicated. Therefore, several representative analyses were used
to assess interference.
At the same time, it was felt appropriate to use tools already available to the Bureau, since results
could be verified more easily.
For this analysis existing EPFD Validation Software was used. Although, it was created to
support EPFD limits verification in FSS bands subject to Article 22 EPFD limits, it provides
agreed within ITU-R methodology to calculate interference into GSO.
The purpose of this analysis was a comparison of cumulative distribution function (CDF) of
EPFD produced by original filing and modified ones.
To allow calculation of interference into GSO in these frequency bands, following has been
done:
1. The file EPFD_limits_RES85.mdb was modified to include additional frequency bands:
1980-2025 MHz, 2170-2200 MHz, 5150-5250 MHz, 7025-7075 MHz. No specific
consideration is given to the limits, since the purpose of the analysis just to produce CDF
curves.
2. PFD/EIRP mask has been generated using information in section 1. Worst-case
assumptions are taken for consideration of interference from non-GSO, e.g. satellite is
always transmitting to single earth station, there are several transmitting earth stations in
victim GSO space station service area.
3. Because of worst-case geometry algorithm, the program selects different positions the
victim GSO ES receivers for original and modified constellation which makes direct
comparison complicated. Therefore, for downlink fixed location were chosen in both
calculation corresponding to the option ‘Use test WCG locations’ in S1503_2 Analysis
program.
4. Different GSO earth station antenna diameters were chosen from 1 m. to 4.8 meter
corresponding to the filed data at ITU.
 EPFD uplink in 1980-2025 MHz
This analysis verifies that:
1. For the earth stations RTU 1/RTU 2 which are unchanged, the level of interference and
its probability does not increase with the change of orbital parameter.
2. For a new earth station RTU 3 the level of interference and its probability does not
increase with the change of orbital parameter as compared to existing earth station RTU
1/2.

1. Comparison of interference produced for the same RTU 1/RTU 2

Modified parameters

Original parameters

% of time EPFD is Modified Original Advantage,

exceeded Parameters parameters dB
100 -142.8 -138.9 3.9
99.99 -142.702478 -138.879151 3.823328
99 -141.535112 -138.640379 2.894733
95 -140.754877 -138.327282 2.427595
90 -140.073657 -137.687919 2.385738
80 -139.066766 -137.536772 1.529994
70 -137.744669 -136.477065 1.267603
60 -136.481904 -135.673479 0.808424
50 -135.30277 -134.083413 1.219357
40 -134.321125 -132.957457 1.363668
30 -133.509247 -132.045812 1.463435
 20 -133.005075 -131.423552 1.581523
10 -132.512725 -131.182536 1.330188
5 -132.247887 -131.140468 1.10742
4 -132.192579 -131.132054 1.060525
3 -132.151576 -131.12364 1.027936
2 -132.110574 -131.115226 0.995348
1 -131.991777 -131.106813 0.884964
0.5 -131.935975 -131.102606 0.833369
0.4 -131.924814 -131.101764 0.82305
0.3 -131.913654 -131.100923 0.812731
0.2 -131.902493 -131.100082 0.802412
Decreasing orbit altitude while keeping the number of satellites unchanged would
decrease visibility statistics between NGSO earth station and NGSO space station, and therefore,
the number of transmission events and their duration during which NGSO earth station may
cause interference to GSO would be lower.

2. Comparison of interference produced for a new RTU 3

Modified parameters

Original parameters

% of time EPFD is exceeded Original Parameters Modified parameters Advantage, dB

100 -148.9 -160.5 11.6
99.99 -148.879151 -160.402478 11.523328
99 -148.640379 -159.23514 10.594761
95 -148.327282 -158.454877 10.127595
90 -147.687919 -157.773533 10.085614
80 -147.536772 -156.750674 9.213902
70 -146.477065 -155.34122 8.864154
60 -145.673479 -153.916694 8.243214
50 -144.083413 -152.61872 8.535307
40 -142.957457 -151.493725 8.536268
30 -142.045812 -150.54158 8.495768
20 -141.423552 -149.880956 8.457404
10 -141.182536 -149.357334 8.174798
 5 -141.140468 -149.083645 7.943177
4 -141.132054 -148.992198 7.860145
3 -141.12364 -148.896747 7.773107
2 -141.115226 -148.787046 7.67182
1 -141.106813 -148.623893 7.51708
0.5 -141.102606 -148.47281 7.370204
0.4 -141.101764 -148.418983 7.317219
0.3 -141.100923 -148.357042 7.256119
0.2 -141.100082 -148.287354 7.187272

It should be noted, since original earth station antenna pattern in 1980-2025 MHz is non-
directional it has a major impact on the produced level of EPFD. Therefore, even after aligning
the level of maximum EIRP in modification with the maximum EIRP of original beam, while at
the same time improving the antenna performance, resulting EPFD shows significantly lower
level as compared to original one.

EPFD uplink in 5150-5250 MHz

Original parameters

Modified parameters

% of time EPFD is exceeded Modified Parameters Original parameters Advantage, dB

100 -195.9 -185.1 10.8
99.99 -192.899721 -185.099114 7.800608
99 -192.832313 -185.011356 7.820958
95 -190.744469 -181.887764 8.856705
90 -186.087674 -181.863097 4.224578
 80 -185.975957 -181.813762 4.162195
70 -184.984833 -181.65782 3.327013
60 -182.191144 -179.299259 2.891885
50 -181.800421 -179.22582 2.574601
40 -180.637007 -178.369381 2.267627
30 -178.457005 -178.113393 0.343612
20 -176.496815 -176.427856 0.068959
10 -173.704665 -172.281313 1.423352
5 -170.469491 -168.352723 2.116767
4 -169.148249 -166.761261 2.386988
3 -167.245013 -164.706227 2.538785
2 -164.391492 -161.803244 2.588248
1 -157.408316 -153.344688 4.063628
0.5 -149.604453 -146.580333 3.024119
0.4 -147.544495 -144.777353 2.767142
0.3 -145.191019 -142.698651 2.492367
0.2 -142.169481 -139.894296 2.275186
0.1 -137.755887 -136.20355 1.552337
0.05 -134.5831 -133.407349 1.175751
0.04 -133.745504 -132.722288 1.023215
0.03 -132.796285 -131.909539 0.886746
0.02 -131.661092 -130.925563 0.735529
0.01 -130.167815 -129.620806 0.547009
0.005 -129.084926 -128.648628 0.436298
0.004 -128.795512 -128.392237 0.403275
0.003 -128.4622 -128.074181 0.388019
0.002 -128.051056 -127.678365 0.372691
0.001 -127.450779 -127.090202 0.360578
0.0005 -126.904778 -126.611214 0.293563
0.0004 -126.737213 -126.470961 0.266252
0.0003 -126.53973 -126.316984 0.222747
0.0002 -126.322634 -126.131013 0.191621
0.0001 -126.044577 -125.895599 0.148978
0.00001 -125.617071 -125.522579 0.094492
Downlink analysis was carried out for several types of earth stations both in 2170-2200 MHz and
7025-7075 MHz.
EPFD Downlink in 2170-2200 MHz for 1-meter GSO ES Antenna

Original parameters

Modified parameters

% of time EPFD is exceeded Modified Parameters Original parameters Advantage, dB

20 -151.734862 -135.013018 16.721845
10 -147.635642 -132.940866 14.694776
5 -137.211856 -126.649822 10.562034
4 -134.277705 -125.082886 9.19482
3 -130.167775 -123.14126 7.026516
2 -126.320081 -120.515753 5.804328
1 -110.190349 -108.060353 2.129995
0.5 -109.134213 -104.526434 4.60778
0.4 -107.256986 -103.17068 4.086306
0.3 -105.048643 -101.845853 3.20279
0.2 -102.936574 -100.561028 2.375547
0.1 -100.936041 -99.310714 1.625328
0.05 -100.023809 -98.7114 1.312409
0.04 -99.846641 -98.596158 1.250484
 0.03 -99.668302 -98.479143 1.189159
0.02 -99.493614 -98.364954 1.128659
0.01 -99.318135 -98.248778 1.069357

EPFD Downlink in 2170-2200 MHz for 4.8-meter GSO ES Antenna

Original parameters

Modified parameters

% of time EPFD is exceeded Modified Parameters Original parameters Advantage, dB

20 -165.362553 -148.642227 16.720325
10 -161.261603 -146.615275 14.646328
5 -150.851003 -140.285963 10.56504
4 -147.900392 -138.720592 9.179799
3 -143.786194 -136.78152 7.004673
2 -139.941815 -134.160542 5.781273
1 -134.4101 -129.888767 4.521333
0.5 -129.609158 -125.789781 3.819377
0.4 -128.15733 -124.516493 3.640837
0.3 -126.333367 -122.813212 3.520154
0.2 -123.828162 -120.5083 3.319862
0.1 -119.655819 -116.612872 3.042947
0.05 -112.575671 -111.501159 1.074512
0.04 -112.523938 -108.883162 3.640776
0.03 -110.403775 -106.157922 4.245853
0.02 -106.558812 -103.455707 3.103106
 0.01 -102.794844 -100.770851 2.023993
0.005 -100.946389 -99.451908 1.494482
0.004 -100.58375 -99.181427 1.402323
0.003 -100.22042 -98.916415 1.304005
0.002 -99.85525 -98.656683 1.198568
0.001 -99.500936 -98.393414 1.107522
0.0005 -99.32273 -98.263761 1.058969
0.0004 -99.287869 -98.238359 1.04951
0.0003 -99.251559 -98.212956 1.038603

EPFD Downlink in 7025-7075 MHz for 1.6-meter GSO ES Antenna

Original parameters

Modified parameters

% of time EPFD is exceeded Modified Parameters Original parameters Advantage, dB

20 -221.817205 -204.966464 16.850741
10 -217.758118 -200.977391 16.780726
5 -211.568408 -194.919907 16.648501
4 -207.376895 -193.268251 14.108644
3 -201.857896 -191.2485 10.609396
2 -196.503088 -188.555764 7.947325
1 -189.166732 -184.22369 4.943042
0.5 -183.618355 -180.090924 3.527431
0.4 -182.032118 -178.805201 3.226917
0.3 -180.088916 -177.125135 2.963781
 0.2 -177.457881 -174.757114 2.700767
0.1 -173.203717 -170.916686 2.287031
0.05 -165.630815 -165.239857 0.390958
0.04 -165.551612 -164.259017 1.292594
0.03 -165.042636 -161.086241 3.956395
0.02 -160.582486 -157.93247 2.650016
0.01 -156.201777 -154.809397 1.392379
0.005 -154.036371 -153.263035 0.773336
0.004 -153.616334 -152.957065 0.659269
0.003 -153.189054 -152.650594 0.538459
0.002 -152.772089 -152.342899 0.42919
0.001 -152.336885 -152.036926 0.299959
0.0005 -152.131501 -151.884563 0.246938
0.0004 -152.091819 -151.855273 0.236546
0.0003 -152.049364 -151.825982 0.223382

EPFD Downlink in 7025-7075 MHz for 3.8-meter GSO ES Antenna

Original parameters

Modified parameters

% of time EPFD is exceeded Modified Parameters Original parameters Advantage, dB

20 -229.329099 -212.481923 16.847177
10 -225.270856 -208.490322 16.780534
5 -219.079532 -202.919753 16.159779
4 -215.109556 -202.302947 12.806609
 3 -210.208057 -201.76499 8.443067
2 -205.700985 -199.071388 6.629597
1 -199.68138 -194.732179 4.9492
0.5 -194.122352 -190.606481 3.515871
0.4 -192.542706 -189.306285 3.236422
0.3 -190.586667 -187.649581 2.937086
0.2 -187.967562 -185.281407 2.686155
0.1 -183.676676 -181.422925 2.253751
0.05 -179.724102 -177.581543 2.142559
0.04 -178.445531 -176.346881 2.09865
0.03 -176.814743 -174.758781 2.055963
0.02 -174.533884 -172.522064 2.01182
0.01 -167.481876 -167.125743 0.356133
0.005 -163.767678 -160.402319 3.365359
0.004 -161.366597 -158.623789 2.742808
0.003 -158.991203 -156.930702 2.060501
0.002 -156.626787 -155.192732 1.434056
0.001 -154.257082 -153.456307 0.800774
0.0005 -153.084833 -152.587703 0.49713
0.0004 -152.85681 -152.417979 0.438831
0.0003 -152.616562 -152.251427 0.365135
0.0002 -152.381543 -152.077441 0.304102
0.0001 -152.156608 -151.906127 0.250481
Since there is a small number of links operating in Earth-to-Space direction, space-to-space
calculation was carried out as well.

EPFD Space-to-Space in 7025-7075 MHz

Modified parameters

Original parameters

% of time EPFD is exceeded Original Parameters Modified parameters Advantage, dB

100 -211.5 -219.2 7.7
99.99 -211.467119 -219.132868 7.665749
99 -210.649907 -218.630937 7.98103
95 -209.483496 -217.825426 8.34193
90 -208.9777 -217.292359 8.31466
80 -207.561088 -216.757756 9.196668
70 -206.644865 -216.120761 9.475896
60 -206.268738 -215.558754 9.290016
50 -205.588953 -215.277496 9.688543
40 -204.811765 -215.055496 10.243731
30 -203.412112 -214.864243 11.452131
20 -201.962025 -214.634416 12.672391
10 -199.449405 -214.357518 14.908114
5 -197.563136 -214.212358 16.649223
4 -197.115455 -214.169294 17.05384
3 -196.604216 -214.117334 17.513119
2 -196.025227 -214.050404 18.025176
1 -195.3335 -213.963887 18.630387
 0.5 -194.891161 -213.907943 19.016783
0.4 -194.796609 -213.891229 19.09462
0.3 -194.68487 -213.860989 19.176119
0.2 -194.5774 -213.83075 19.25335
0.1 -194.433205 -213.80051 19.367305
0.05 -194.346841 -213.739937 19.393096
0.04 -194.322927 -213.727505 19.404578
0.03 -194.298644 -213.715073 19.41643
0.02 -194.265763 -213.702641 19.436879
0.01 -194.232881 -213.647132 19.414251
0.005 -194.216441 -213.613566 19.397125
0.004 -194.213153 -213.606853 19.3937
0.003 -194.209864 -213.60014 19.390275
0.002 -194.206576 -213.567132 19.360556
0.001 -194.203288 -213.533566 19.330278
0.0005 -194.201644 -213.516783 19.315139
0.0004 -194.201315 -213.513426 19.312111
0.0003 -194.200986 -213.51007 19.309083
0.0002 -194.200658 -213.506713 19.306056
0.0001 -194.200329 -213.503357 19.303028
0.00001 -194.200033 -213.500336 19.300303

In space-to-space direction there is a larger margin. It is understood this is due to different worst-
case locations selected for original constellation and modified one. In practice, since the satellites
will be flying at lower altitude there will be additional advantage associated with the space-to-
space spread loss.

Provided analysis demonstrate that interference to GSO networks is well below the levels
produced by original submission of SIRION-1.
Based on this analysis, it is understood that modification would not cause more interference to
the GSO Networks received after 21.03.2013.

5. Assessment of modification with respect to non-GSO networks

Following non-GSO networks were filed to ITU after SIRION-1 submission (21.03.2013).
Downlink
ntc_id adm sat_name ntf_rsn ntc_type emi_rcp freq_min freq_max
113520077 NOR ARE-2 C N E 2199.5 2200
113520188 PNG OMNISPACE F2 C N E 2170 2200
115520048 F AST-NG-C-1 C N E 2170 2200
7025 7075
115520085 F ES-SAT-2 C N E 7025 7062.5
115520131 NOR ARE-3 C N E 2199.5 2200
115520171 F AST-NG-C-2 C N E 2170 2200
7025 7075
115520227 CHN MCSCS C N E 2170 2200
7025 7075
116520069 LUX CLEOSAT C N E 7025 7075
116520105 CHN XINGYUN C N E 7025 7075
116520228 F AST-NG-C-3 C N E 2170 2200
7025 7075
116520381 G SSG-CSL C N E 2170 2200
116520443 SLM SI-SAT-KURUKURU C N E 2170 2200
117520372 F AST-NG-C-4 C N E 2170 2200
7025 7075
117520071 RUS IK-NGSO-A10K-2 C N E 7025 7075

117520488 RUS PROGNOZ-N C N E 2170 2200

117520487 F EB-SAT-LEO-1 C N E 2170 2200
7025 7075
117520492 F EB-SAT-LEO-1B C N E 2170 2200
7025 7075
118520082 PNG MICRONSAT C N E 2170 2200
118520098 CAN KELYPSIS C N E 2170 2200

Uplink
ntc_id adm sat_name ntf_rsn ntc_type emi_rcp freq_min freq_max
113520188 PNG OMNISPACE F2 C N R 1980 2025
115520048 F AST-NG-C-1 C N R 1980 2025
5150 5250
115520085 F ES-SAT-2 C N R 5150 5250
115520171 F AST-NG-C-2 C N R 1980 2025
5150 5250
115520227 CHN MCSCS C N R 1980 2010
5150 5250
115520228 CHN TXIN C N R 5150 5250
116520069 LUX CLEOSAT C N R 5150 5250
116520105 CHN XINGYUN C N R 5150 5250
116520228 F AST-NG-C-3 C N R 1980 2025
5150 5250
116520381 G SSG-CSL C N R 1980 2025
116520419 RUS IK-NGSO-A10K-1 C N R 5150 5250
116520442 SLM SI-SAT-BILIKIKI C N R 5150 5250
1980 2010
117520071 RUS IK-NGSO-A10K-2 C N R 5150 5250
117520372 F AST-NG-C-4 C N R 1980 2025
5150 5250
117520183 CHN DES-LEO C N R 5150 5250
117520487 F EB-SAT-LEO-1 C N R 1980 2025
5150 5250
117520492 F EB-SAT-LEO-1B C N R 1980 2025
5150 5250
117520488 RUS PROGNOZ-N C N R 1980 2025
118520053 CHN OKSAT C N R 5216 5250
 Space-to-space
ntc_id adm sat_name ntf_rsn ntc_type emi_rcp freq_min freq_max
117520071 RUS IK-NGSO-A10K-2 C N R 7025 7075
117520372 F AST-NG-C-4 C N R 7025 7075
317520490 SLM SI-SAT-BILIKIKI C N R 7025 7075

Dynamic I/N analysis on downlink was carried out for different scenarios of operation of non-
GSO networks.
5.1. Downlink analysis
It was assumed that victim non-GSO earth station receiver is tracking its own satellite
constellation. For different scenarios different location of victim ES were chosen. In most of the
cases it corresponds to worst latitude of 0 degrees. In some other cases, filed geographical
coordinates of ES were chosen.
Interference would not change significantly with the latitude, this is since all systems are
operating with the low circular orbits. Figure below illustrates that interference produced by
modified characteristics would generally stay below interference produced by original
assignments for all the latitudes.

It should be noted that the most earth stations operating in 2170-2200 are mobile earth stations
having non-directional antenna patterns.
In the figures below CDF curves of interference to noise ratio are provided comparing the level
of produced I/N for each of the system.
Earth station location (latitude 78.2167) is based on the coordinates of specific earth station in
the filing.

Earth station location (latitude 78.2167) is based on the coordinates of specific earth station in
the filing.
Worst-case latitude is 0 degrees.

Worst-case latitude is 0 degrees.

Worst-case latitude is 0 degrees.
GATEWAY-BJ Earth station location (latitude 39.68) is based on the coordinates of specific
earth station in the filing.

GATEWAY-KS Earth station location (latitude 39.56) is based on the coordinates of specific
earth station in the filing.
GATEWAY-MH Earth station location (latitude 53.55) is based on the coordinates of specific
earth station in the filing.
For TYPICAL-3M worst-case latitude is 0 degrees.

Worst-case latitude is 0 degrees.

Worst-case latitude is 0 degrees.

Worst-case latitude is 0 degrees.

Worst-case latitude is 10 degrees.

Worst-case latitude is 0 degrees.

Earth station location (latitude 18.2339) is based on the coordinates of specific earth station in
the filing.
For UT-S-6 antenna approximation close to earth station AP8 antenna pattern was used.

Dynamic simulation demonstrates that the level of I/N in modified parameters filing is well
below the level of I/N produced by system with unmodified parameters. The worst-case is when
I/N is calculated into 2170-2200 MHz receiving earth station having non-directional antenna
pattern. In this case the difference between maximum I/N could be as less as 1 dB.
5.2. Space-to-space analysis
Normally interference in space-to-space direction would be negligible due to orbit separation and
receiving or interfering transmitting antenna discrimination.
Included Space-to-Space analysis considers interference into 3 systems. However, because some
systems like AST-NG-C-4 use several type of orbits (up-to 60) calculation was required to each
type of orbit distinguished by orbit inclination and altitude.
These results demonstrate very low level of I/N.

Results for IK-NGSO-A10K-2 are provided for different orbit inclinations of IK-NGSO-A10K-
2.
Medium earth orbit used in IK-NGSO-A10K-2 is significantly more susceptible to interference
from SIRION-1 2000 km orbit.
 5.3. Uplink analysis
For the uplink analysis decreased visibility statistics for SIRION-1 constellation would generally
decrease the number and duration of earth station transmissions, this would mean that for same
level of produced I/N, the probability of this level of I/N would be lower.
Also, modified uplink EIRP in 1980-2025 MHz provided in section 1 demonstrates the
decreased level of potential interference, whether SIRION-1 earth station could have tracking or
fixed pointing antenna.
Dynamic analysis is confirmed by analysis carried out in section for GSO networks, which
demonstrated that dynamic EPFD calculation follows EIRP mask pattern.
According to Recommendation S. 1503-2, a low angular velocity (corresponding to orbit altitude
of 2000 km) will result in higher likelihoods of interference. Therefore, lower altitude is
increasing angular velocity of the satellites and further provide the benefit for sharing.

5.4. Downlink analysis under No. 9.14

For 2170-2200 MHz where coordination threshold exists in Appendix 5, Annex 1 both original
publication and modified one will exceed coordination thresholds. Produced PFD masks below
are based on fixed beam orientation with maximum pointing at nadir.
Purpose of the dynamic PFD analysis provided in section 3 is to demonstrate that even while
exceeding coordination thresholds, all terrestrial stations notified after original publication of
SIRION-1 would not receive more interference from modified SIRION-1 as compared to
original one. Thus, condition of paragraph 2.3.1 of the Rules of procedures for No. 9.27 is met.
-90
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

-100

-110

Modified Antenna in 2170-2200 MHz

PFD, dBW/4 kHz

Original Antenna in 2170-2200 MHz

-120 Ap5 coordination treshold (4 kHz)
Ap5 coordination treshold (1 MHz)

-130

-140

-150
Angle of arrival

In the band 7025-7075 MHz, the document provides similar analysis even though there is no
requirement to coordinate with terrestrial services and they are protected through hard-limit in
Article 21.
 -150
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

-152

-154

-156
PFD, dBW/4 kHz

-158

Modified Antenna in 7025-7075 MHz

-160
Original Antenna in 7025-7075 MHz

-162

-164

-166
Angle of arrival

6. Conclusion
The aim of provided analysis was to demonstrate that modification of parameters to SIRION-1
filing would improve interference environment involving co-frequency sharing with terrestrial
services, GSO networks and non-GSO systems.
In each of the case, the level of interference produced by this modification is lower as compared
to originally filed parameters.
Moreover, coordination requirements are not affected following the guidance of Rules of
Procedures under No. 9.27.