pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.26943 · v1 · pith:YOC3CMT6new · submitted 2026-05-26 · 📡 eess.SP

On the LEO Satellite Constellation Design for North Atlantic Coverage

Alejandro Ram\'irez-Arroyo , Miguel Villanueva-Fern\'andez , Preben Mogensen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 15:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SP
keywords LEO satellite constellationNorth Atlantic coverageWalker Deltaminimum elevation angleinclinationvisibility probabilitymaritime connectivityArctic connectivity
0
0 comments X

The pith

A Walker Delta constellation of 64 satellites at 1000 km altitude provides continuous coverage above 55°N for minimum elevation angles below 20°.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper examines the design of LEO satellite constellations specifically for covering the North Atlantic region. It analyzes how factors like satellite inclination, minimum elevation angle, altitude, and the number of satellites influence key performance metrics including visibility probability, revisit time, path loss, and coverage continuity. The findings indicate that a Walker Delta pattern with 64 satellites at 1000 km altitude can ensure continuous coverage north of 55 degrees for elevation angles below 20 degrees. Coverage drops sharply at higher elevation requirements, and inclinations above 70 degrees are necessary for reliable performance with medium-sized setups. These insights help guide the deployment of satellites for maritime, aviation, and Arctic communication needs where existing systems fall short.

Core claim

The paper establishes that orbital parameters in a Walker Delta constellation must be tuned specifically for high-latitude regional coverage: a configuration of 64 satellites at 1000 km altitude achieves continuous coverage above 55°N when the minimum elevation angle is kept below 20°, while larger elevation angles cause coverage probability to degrade sharply. Inclinations exceeding approximately 70° are required to maintain robust coverage with constellations of this size. The work derives these relationships by simulating the effects of inclination, altitude, and footprint size on visibility, revisit time, path loss, and continuity over the target area.

What carries the argument

Walker Delta constellation whose inclination, altitude, and satellite count determine visibility probability, revisit time, path loss, and coverage continuity over the North Atlantic.

If this is right

  • A 64-satellite constellation at 1000 km provides continuous coverage above 55°N for minimum elevations below 20°.
  • Coverage probability degrades drastically for elevation angles larger than 20°.
  • Inclinations above 70° are needed for robust North Atlantic coverage with medium-size constellations.
  • The results offer practical guidelines for designing constellations targeting maritime, aviation, and Arctic connectivity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • These design rules could extend to other high-latitude maritime routes beyond the North Atlantic.
  • Adjusting for real-world factors like interference might require larger constellations or different altitudes.
  • The emphasis on elevation angle suggests trade-offs with user terminal capabilities in practical deployments.

Load-bearing premise

The simulation models for visibility probability, revisit time, path loss, and coverage continuity accurately capture real propagation and orbital dynamics over the North Atlantic without unmodeled effects such as weather, terrain, or interference.

What would settle it

Field measurements of coverage continuity using a 64-satellite Walker Delta constellation at 1000 km altitude showing gaps above 55°N even at elevation angles below 20°.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.26943 by Alejandro Ram\'irez-Arroyo, Miguel Villanueva-Fern\'andez, Preben Mogensen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Walker Delta (60° : 64/8/0) constellation and (b) Walker Star (90° : 64/8/0) constellation. The altitude of the orbital shell has been set at 1,000 km. lations and those planned for the near future, the following sections explore aspects of satellite orbit design applicable to the principles of the aforementioned constellations, as well as new satellite constellation designs. In particular, note that t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Projection of the satellite’s visibility relative to the Earth’s surface for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) Coverage area radius of a satellite footprint and (b) lower bound [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Path loss for an Earth-space communications system deployed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Line-of-Sight probability for an Earth-space communications system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Probability of establishing visibility with at least one satellite in the LEO constellation for several latitudes and elevation angles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spatial coverage given P(Nsat ≥ 1) across the North Atlantic, considering several minimum elevation angles ϵ. Results for Walker Delta (75° : 64/8/3) constellation with with h = 1000 km and (a) ϵ = 20°, (b) ϵ = 40°, and (c) ϵ = 60°. (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Median and (b) maximum revisit time τ for several latitudes and elevation angles ϵ given a Walker Delta (75° : 64/8/3) constellation with h = 1000 km. The full coverage region is the area where visibility to all satellites in the constellation is never lost simultaneously, while the out-of￾coverage region is the area where no satellites in the constellation are ever visible [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/fu… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Probability of establishing visibility with at least one satellite in the LEO constellation for several latitudes and inclination angles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Average number of satellites within the ground station visibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Spatial coverage given P(Nsat ≥ 1) across the North Atlantic, considering several inclination angles i. Results for Walker Delta (i : 64/8/3) constellation with h = 1000 km and ϵ = 40° and (a) i = 55°, (b) i = 75°, and (c) i = 90°. (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (a) Median and (b) maximum revisit time τ for several latitudes and inclination angles i given a Walker Delta (i : 64/8/3) constellation with with h = 1000 km and ϵ = 40°. The full coverage region is the area where visibility to all satellites in the constellation is never lost simultaneously, while the out-of-coverage region is the area where no satellites in the constellation are ever visible. V. CONCLU… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite constellations are emerging as a key component of non-terrestrial networks due to their low-latency and high-capacity communication capabilities. However, satellites in these orbits are characterized by a small coverage footprint and high orbital velocity compared to those in higher orbits. This results in constantly changing and dynamic constellations that require smart design of orbital parameters to ensure continuous coverage. Existing constellation deployments are typically optimized either for low- and mid-latitude regions or for full polar coverage, leaving high-latitude regional scenarios such as the North Atlantic insufficiently explored. This work provides insights into the key characteristics associated with the deployment of satellites in LEO for North Atlantic coverage. Therefore, we investigate how constellation inclination, minimum elevation angle, altitude, and satellite footprint jointly affect visibility probability, revisit time, path loss, and coverage continuity. Results show that the minimum elevation angle is a critical design parameter since a Walker Delta constellation with 64 satellites at 1000 km altitude can provide continuous coverage above 55{\deg}N for elevations below 20{\deg}, whereas coverage probability degrades drastically for larger elevation angles. Similarly, inclinations above approximately 70{\deg} are required to achieve robust North Atlantic coverage with medium-size constellations. Thus, these results provide practical guidelines on how a satellite constellation should be designed to achieve an efficient deployment with a focus on coverage over the North Atlantic, targeting maritime, aviation, and Arctic connectivity scenarios.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines LEO satellite constellation design for North Atlantic coverage, analyzing the effects of inclination, minimum elevation angle, altitude, and satellite footprint on visibility probability, revisit time, path loss, and coverage continuity through simulations. Key findings indicate that a Walker Delta constellation with 64 satellites at 1000 km altitude achieves continuous coverage above 55°N for elevation angles below 20°, with significant degradation at higher angles, and that inclinations exceeding approximately 70° are necessary for robust coverage using medium-sized constellations.

Significance. If the simulation results are validated, this work supplies practical guidelines for LEO constellation parameters targeting high-latitude maritime and Arctic scenarios, addressing a gap relative to existing low/mid-latitude or full-polar designs.

major comments (2)
  1. [Simulation methodology] Simulation methodology (implicit in results presentation): visibility probability, revisit time, path loss, and coverage continuity are obtained from forward orbital-geometry simulations, yet the manuscript supplies no validation against independent propagators, no explicit perturbation model (J2, drag, third-body), and no sensitivity study to North-Atlantic factors such as sea-surface multipath or ionospheric scintillation. These omissions are load-bearing for the reported 20° elevation and 70° inclination thresholds.
  2. [Results] Results section: the claim that a 64-satellite Walker Delta at 1000 km yields continuous coverage above 55°N for elevations <20° is stated without the number of Monte-Carlo realizations, sampling strategy, or convergence diagnostics, preventing assessment of whether the continuity result is statistically robust or sensitive to small changes in the visibility model.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and results: the phrase 'elevations below 20°' should be clarified as 'minimum elevation angle' and consistently distinguished from the elevation threshold used in the visibility criterion.
  2. [Methods] Notation: 'satellite footprint' is used without an explicit formula or reference to the Earth-central-angle calculation; add the governing expression.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below with clarifications on our simulation approach and agree to incorporate additional details in the revised version to improve transparency.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Simulation methodology] Simulation methodology (implicit in results presentation): visibility probability, revisit time, path loss, and coverage continuity are obtained from forward orbital-geometry simulations, yet the manuscript supplies no validation against independent propagators, no explicit perturbation model (J2, drag, third-body), and no sensitivity study to North-Atlantic factors such as sea-surface multipath or ionospheric scintillation. These omissions are load-bearing for the reported 20° elevation and 70° inclination thresholds.

    Authors: Our work focuses on geometric coverage analysis using standard two-body Keplerian orbital models, which is a standard first-order approach for constellation design studies. We agree that the assumptions should be stated explicitly. In the revision we will add a dedicated subsection on the simulation methodology that describes the orbital model, notes the absence of perturbations and environmental effects such as multipath or scintillation, and discusses the implications for the reported thresholds. This will clarify that the results provide initial design guidelines rather than high-fidelity operational predictions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results section: the claim that a 64-satellite Walker Delta at 1000 km yields continuous coverage above 55°N for elevations <20° is stated without the number of Monte-Carlo realizations, sampling strategy, or convergence diagnostics, preventing assessment of whether the continuity result is statistically robust or sensitive to small changes in the visibility model.

    Authors: The reported continuity results are obtained from deterministic forward simulations of the fixed Walker Delta constellation geometry over multiple orbital periods. Because the configuration is periodic and the model contains no stochastic elements, Monte-Carlo sampling over random initial conditions is not required; the coverage outcome is deterministic for the chosen parameters. We will revise the results section to specify the simulation duration, time sampling interval, and orbital period coverage to allow readers to evaluate the robustness of the continuity claim under the stated model. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; forward simulation of orbital geometry

full rationale

The paper computes coverage metrics (visibility probability, revisit time, path loss, coverage continuity) via direct simulation sweeps over constellation parameters (inclination, altitude, elevation angle, number of satellites) using standard orbital geometry. No equations fit parameters to a data subset and then rename the output as a prediction; no self-definitional relations where X is defined in terms of Y; no load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems imported from prior author work. The central claims are outputs of the simulation model itself and remain independent of the reported results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields limited visibility into modeling assumptions; the study relies on standard orbital-mechanics calculations whose details are not supplied.

free parameters (4)
  • constellation size = 64
    64 satellites chosen as representative medium-size constellation
  • altitude = 1000 km
    1000 km selected for the reported coverage results
  • inclination threshold = 70 deg
    approximately 70 degrees identified as required for robust coverage
  • elevation threshold = 20 deg
    20 degrees used as the boundary for continuous coverage
axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard Keplerian orbital mechanics and spherical-Earth coverage geometry govern visibility and revisit statistics
    Invoked implicitly when computing coverage probability and revisit time for given inclination and altitude

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5795 in / 1343 out tokens · 44424 ms · 2026-06-29T15:40:32.054004+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Non-Terrestrial Networks for 6G: Integrated, Intelligent, and Ubiquitous Connectivity,

    M. A. Jamshed, A. Kaushik, M. Dajer, A. Guidotti, F. Parzysz, E. La- gunas, M. Di Renzo, S. Chatzinotas, and O. A. Dobre, “Non-Terrestrial Networks for 6G: Integrated, Intelligent, and Ubiquitous Connectivity,” IEEE Communications Standards Magazine, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 86–93, 2025

    2025

  2. [2]

    Toward 6G Non-Terrestrial Networks,

    G. Araniti, A. Iera, S. Pizzi, and F. Rinaldi, “Toward 6G Non-Terrestrial Networks,”IEEE Network, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 113–120, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    Modeling and Analysis of GEO Satellite Networks,

    D.-H. Jung, H. Nam, J. Choi, and D. J. Love, “Modeling and Analysis of GEO Satellite Networks,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communi- cations, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 16 757–16 770, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Broadband LEO Satellite Communications: Architectures and Key Technologies,

    Y . Su, Y . Liu, Y . Zhou, J. Yuan, H. Cao, and J. Shi, “Broadband LEO Satellite Communications: Architectures and Key Technologies,”IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 55–61, 2019

    2019

  5. [5]

    Leyva-Mayorga, B

    I. Leyva-Mayorga, B. Soret, B. Matthiesen, M. Röper, D. Wübben, A. Dekorsy, and P. Popovski,Non-geostationary orbit constellation design for global connectivity. IET - Institution of Engineering and Technology, 2024, pp. 237–267

    2024

  6. [6]

    LEO Small-Satellite Constellations for 5G and Beyond-5G Communications,

    I. Leyva-Mayorga, B. Soret, M. Röper, D. Wübben, B. Matthiesen, A. Dekorsy, and P. Popovski, “LEO Small-Satellite Constellations for 5G and Beyond-5G Communications,”IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 184 955– 184 964, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Evolution of Non-Terrestrial Networks From 5G to 6G: A Survey,

    M. M. Azari, S. Solanki, S. Chatzinotas, O. Kodheli, H. Sallouha, A. Colpaert, J. F. Mendoza Montoya, S. Pollin, A. Haqiqatnejad, A. Mostaani, E. Lagunas, and B. Ottersten, “Evolution of Non-Terrestrial Networks From 5G to 6G: A Survey,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2633–2672, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    An Updated Comparison of Four Low Earth Orbit Satellite Constellation Systems to Provide Global Broadband,

    N. Pachler, I. del Portillo, E. F. Crawley, and B. G. Cameron, “An Updated Comparison of Four Low Earth Orbit Satellite Constellation Systems to Provide Global Broadband,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC Workshops), 2021, pp. 1–7

    2021

  9. [9]

    Modeling Uplink Coverage Perfor- mance in Hybrid Satellite-Terrestrial Networks,

    B. A. Homssi and A. Al-Hourani, “Modeling Uplink Coverage Perfor- mance in Hybrid Satellite-Terrestrial Networks,”IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 3239–3243, 2021

    2021

  10. [10]

    Optimal Beamwidth and Altitude for Maximal Uplink Coverage in Satellite Networks,

    B. Al Homssi and A. Al-Hourani, “Optimal Beamwidth and Altitude for Maximal Uplink Coverage in Satellite Networks,”IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 771–775, 2022

    2022

  11. [11]

    On Modeling Satellite-to-Ground Path- Loss in Urban Environments,

    A. Al-Hourani and I. Guvenc, “On Modeling Satellite-to-Ground Path- Loss in Urban Environments,”IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 696–700, 2021

    2021

  12. [12]

    An Analytic Approach for Modeling the Coverage Per- formance of Dense Satellite Networks,

    A. Al-Hourani, “An Analytic Approach for Modeling the Coverage Per- formance of Dense Satellite Networks,”IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 897–901, 2021

    2021

  13. [13]

    Phasing Parame- ter Analysis for Satellite Collision Avoidance in Starlink and Kuiper Constellations,

    J. Liang, A. U. Chaudhry, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “Phasing Parame- ter Analysis for Satellite Collision Avoidance in Starlink and Kuiper Constellations,” in2021 IEEE 4th 5G World F orum (5GWF), 2021, pp. 493–498

    2021

  14. [14]

    Impact of El- evation Angle on Multi-Beam LEO Satellite Communication Systems,

    A. Fastenbauer, M. Kaneko, P. Svoboda, and M. Rupp, “Impact of El- evation Angle on Multi-Beam LEO Satellite Communication Systems,” IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp. 71 723–71 737, 2025

    2025

  15. [15]

    Communication Constellation Design of Mini- mum Number of Satellites with Continuous Coverage and Inter-Satellite Link,

    S. Jeon and S.-Y . Park, “Communication Constellation Design of Mini- mum Number of Satellites with Continuous Coverage and Inter-Satellite Link,” 2024

    2024

  16. [16]

    On Delay Performance in Mega Satellite Networks with Inter-Satellite Links,

    K. Dakic, C. C. Chan, B. A. Homssi, K. Sithamparanathan, and A. Al-Hourani, “On Delay Performance in Mega Satellite Networks with Inter-Satellite Links,” inGLOBECOM 2023 - 2023 IEEE Global Communications Conference, 2023, pp. 4896–4901

    2023

  17. [17]

    Space Bureau Partially Grants SpaceX’s Applications to Add Frequencies and Additional Satellites to Upgrade the SpaceX Gen2 Starlink Constellation,

    Federal Communications Commission, “Space Bureau Partially Grants SpaceX’s Applications to Add Frequencies and Additional Satellites to Upgrade the SpaceX Gen2 Starlink Constellation,” Federal Communi- cations Commission, Tech. Rep. DA 26-36, 2026

    2026

  18. [18]

    WorldVu Satellites Limited Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Modify the U.S Market Access Grant for the OneWeb Ku-band and Ka-Band NGSO FSS System,

    ——, “WorldVu Satellites Limited Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Modify the U.S Market Access Grant for the OneWeb Ku-band and Ka-Band NGSO FSS System,” Federal Communications Commission, Tech. Rep. DA 22-970, 2022

    2022

  19. [19]

    Iridium Constellation LLC Application for Modification of License to Authorize a Second-Generation NGSO MSS Constellation,

    ——, “Iridium Constellation LLC Application for Modification of License to Authorize a Second-Generation NGSO MSS Constellation,” Federal Communications Commission, Tech. Rep. DA 16-875, 2016

    2016

  20. [20]

    Globalstar Licensee LLC Application for Modification of Non- Geostationary Mobile Satellite Service System Authorization,

    ——, “Globalstar Licensee LLC Application for Modification of Non- Geostationary Mobile Satellite Service System Authorization,” Federal Communications Commission, Tech. Rep. DA 24-825, 2024

    2024

  21. [21]

    Kuiper Systems, LLC Application for Authority to Deploy and Operate a Ka-band Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit System,

    ——, “Kuiper Systems, LLC Application for Authority to Deploy and Operate a Ka-band Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit System,” Federal Communications Commission, Tech. Rep. FCC 20-102, 2020

    2020

  22. [22]

    Reg- ulation (EU) 2023/588 Establishing the Union Secure Connectivity Programme for the Period 2023–2027,

    European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, “Reg- ulation (EU) 2023/588 Establishing the Union Secure Connectivity Programme for the Period 2023–2027,” Official Journal of the European Union, Tech. Rep. Regulation (EU) 2023/588, 2023

    2023

  23. [23]

    EUSPA Secure SATCOM: Market and User Technology Report,

    European Union Agency for the Space Programme, “EUSPA Secure SATCOM: Market and User Technology Report,” European Union, Tech. Rep., 2023

    2023

  24. [24]

    Starlink Standard Specifications,

    SpaceX, “Starlink Standard Specifications,” https://starlink.com/ public-files/specification_sheet_standard.pdf, 2026, accessed: 2026-03- 11

    2026

  25. [25]

    Starlink Performance Specifications,

    ——, “Starlink Performance Specifications,” https://starlink.com/ public-files/specification_sheet_performance.pdf, 2026, accessed: 2026- 03-11

    2026

  26. [26]

    Implementation of a Channel Model for Non-Terrestrial Networks in ns-3,

    M. Sandri, M. Pagin, M. Giordani, and M. Zorzi, “Implementation of a Channel Model for Non-Terrestrial Networks in ns-3,” inProceedings of the 2023 Workshop on Ns-3, ser. WNS3 ’23, New York, NY , USA, 2023, p. 28–34. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3592149.3592158

    work page doi:10.1145/3592149.3592158 2023

  27. [27]

    A Note on a Simple Transmission Formula,

    H. Friis, “A Note on a Simple Transmission Formula,”Proceedings of the IRE, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 254–256, 1946

    1946

  28. [28]

    Recommendation ITU-R P.618: Propagation data and prediction methods required for the design of Earth-space telecommunication systems,

    International Telecommunication Union, “Recommendation ITU-R P.618: Propagation data and prediction methods required for the design of Earth-space telecommunication systems,” International Telecommu- nication Union, Recommendation ITU-R P.618, 2023

    2023

  29. [29]

    Recommendation ITU-R P.676: Attenuation by atmospheric gases and related effects,

    ——, “Recommendation ITU-R P.676: Attenuation by atmospheric gases and related effects,” International Telecommunication Union, Recommendation ITU-R P.676, 2022

    2022

  30. [30]

    Recommendation ITU-R P.834: Effects of tropospheric refraction on radiowave propagation,

    ——, “Recommendation ITU-R P.834: Effects of tropospheric refraction on radiowave propagation,” International Telecommunication Union, Recommendation ITU-R P.834, 2017

    2017

  31. [31]

    Recommendation ITU-R P.531: Ionospheric propagation data and prediction methods required for the design of satellite networks and sys- tems,

    ——, “Recommendation ITU-R P.531: Ionospheric propagation data and prediction methods required for the design of satellite networks and sys- tems,” International Telecommunication Union, Recommendation ITU-R P.531, 2025

    2025

  32. [32]

    Recommendation ITU-R P.836: Water vapour; surface density and total columnar content,

    ——, “Recommendation ITU-R P.836: Water vapour; surface density and total columnar content,” International Telecommunication Union, Recommendation ITU-R P.836, 2017

    2017

  33. [33]

    Recommendation ITU-R P.837: Characteristics of precipitation for propagation modelling,

    ——, “Recommendation ITU-R P.837: Characteristics of precipitation for propagation modelling,” International Telecommunication Union, Recommendation ITU-R P.837, 2025

    2025

  34. [34]

    Recommendation ITU-R P.840: Attenuation due to clouds and fog,

    ——, “Recommendation ITU-R P.840: Attenuation due to clouds and fog,” International Telecommunication Union, Recommendation ITU-R P.840, 2023

    2023

  35. [35]

    Request for Deployment and Operating Authority for the SpaceX Gen2 NGSO Satellite System,

    Federal Communications Commission, “Request for Deployment and Operating Authority for the SpaceX Gen2 NGSO Satellite System,” Federal Communications Commission, Tech. Rep. DA 24-1193, 2024

    2024

  36. [36]

    Study on New Radio (NR) to Support Non-Terrestrial Networks,

    3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), “Study on New Radio (NR) to Support Non-Terrestrial Networks,” 3GPP, Technical Report TR 38.811, Jan. 2020, version 15.4.0, Release 15. [Online]. Available: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/38_series/38.811/38811-f40.zip

    2020

  37. [37]

    OneWeb Non-Geostationary Satellite System V-Band Component: Phase 1 Modification to Authorized System, Technical Attachment A,

    Federal Communications Commission, “OneWeb Non-Geostationary Satellite System V-Band Component: Phase 1 Modification to Authorized System, Technical Attachment A,” Federal Commu- nications Commission, Tech. Rep. SAT-MPL-20211104-00144, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://fcc.report/IBFS/SAT-MPL-20211104-00144/ 13337509.pdf

    2021

  38. [38]

    An overview of the IRIDIUM (R) low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite system,

    C. Fossa, R. Raines, G. Gunsch, and M. Temple, “An overview of the IRIDIUM (R) low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite system,” inProceedings of the IEEE 1998 National Aerospace and Electronics Conference. NAECON 1998. Celebrating 50 Years (Cat. No.98CH36185), 1998, pp. 152–159

    1998