|
|
DirecTV lost a bird?
wrote in message ... SAC 441 wrote: Hughes (now DirecTV Corp.) owns Panamsat;consequently how this interest affects DirecTV is beyond me though.The Xenon/Ion propulsion system It affects the finances of DirecTV, perhaps not the delivery of DTV content. The news blurb that I saw failed to mention that part. ;-) They also made the failure sound like it would occur in a matter of days, not years. That's a typical US news media ploy. Misleading the public to attract viewers. Tom --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.734 / Virus Database: 488 - Release Date: 8/4/2004 |
I wonder what would happen to VOOM if that ocurred on Rainbow 1?
Ken |
Why not send the Space Shuttle to retreive the satellite and fix it?
|
wonder what would happen to VOOM if that ocurred on Rainbow 1?
Does anybody, except for VOOM really care? It isn't like they have any customers to speak of! I guess they would change the name to DOOM! |
KevinXKitchen wrote:
Why not send the Space Shuttle to retreive the satellite and fix it? They won't even repair Hubble with the Space Shuttle. There's no chance in hell they would do it for a private satellite even if it was feasible. |
KevinXKitchen wrote:
Why not send the Space Shuttle to retreive the satellite and fix it? Because a shuttle designed for a ~200 mile LEO could not travel out to the 22,000+ mile high Clarke belt in which geostationary satellites reside. |
Because a shuttle designed for a ~200 mile LEO could not travel out
to the 22,000+ mile high Clarke belt in which geostationary satellites reside. I never knew that. I thought that the shuttle was designed to go out there and grab wayward satellites so they could be refuled and fixed. |
wrote in message ... Some satellites are at 22,500 and some are at ~250. Some are probably at other altitudes. Chip All of the geo-synchronous satellites are at 22,500, it is the only place that they can be geo-synchronous. Tom --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 8/11/2004 |
All of the geo-synchronous satellites are at 22,500, it is the only place
that they can be geo-synchronous. Is there any reason they have be geo-sync? Sirrius' satellites are not geo synch- they fly around in an "8" pattern and it works fine. |
Another point that nobody's mentioned is that, to the best of my
knowledge, the shuttle's satellite servicing missions have been to government-owned satellites. Even if a mission to service a GEO satellite were technically feasible, DirecTV would have to contract with NASA to do Well I wonder how much it cost to replace a satellite like DirecTv or Echostar has. I figure it is at least 100 million dollars if not more- just to let it fall and burn up in space. I kind of have a business idea. Open a private investor owned company. Buy 2 or 3 space shuttles (once the problems have been fixed of course), hire 2 crews to go on missions to capture and launch commercial satellites. Then, as the satellite nears the end of its life, the customer fires it into low orbit, we fly up and catch it, bring it back to earth where it is refuled and any repairs or upgrades needed are done. Then we fly it back up and relaunch it and, on the same mission, we catch another satellite and bring it back. The question is, would this cheaper than building and launching a new satellite. It would effectively double the life of an existing satellite. I figure that, if it cost 100 million to build and launch a satellite, if we could capture, refurbish and relaunch it for $75 million, that saves a customer $25 million and we make money. It might be silly- maybe the numbers won't work but then again, maybe they will. You would only have to train the crews really once since every mission would be essentially the same. |
"KevinXKitchen" wrote in message
... All of the geo-synchronous satellites are at 22,500, it is the only place that they can be geo-synchronous. Is there any reason they have be geo-sync? Sirrius' satellites are not geo synch- they fly around in an "8" pattern and it works fine. Geo-sync satellites fly like that also, but, relative to earth, are in a small enough patter so as to be seen in the same place. That's just station keeping. |
Once upon a time, KevinXKitchen said:
Well I wonder how much it cost to replace a satellite like DirecTv or Echostar has. I figure it is at least 100 million dollars if not more- just to let it fall and burn up in space. I kind of have a business idea. Open a private investor owned company. Buy 2 or 3 space shuttles (once the problems have been fixed of course), hire 2 crews to go on missions to capture and launch commercial satellites. Satellites can cost a billion dollars. However, shuttles (if you could go build one) cost over a billion dollars and cost hundreds of millions of dollars per flight. While that was an envisioned use of the space shuttle during design, it didn't pan out economically. -- Chris Adams Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. |
"KevinXKitchen" wrote in message ... All of the geo-synchronous satellites are at 22,500, it is the only place that they can be geo-synchronous. Is there any reason they have be geo-sync? Sirrius' satellites are not geo synch- they fly around in an "8" pattern and it works fine. Satellites delivering signals to stationary 18 inch dishes have to stay at the same orbit position. See "Constellation in the sky" near the end of the following page: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/proton/sirius1/ |
"Chris Adams" wrote in message ... Once upon a time, KevinXKitchen said: Well I wonder how much it cost to replace a satellite like DirecTv or Echostar has. I figure it is at least 100 million dollars if not more- just to let it fall and burn up in space. I kind of have a business idea. Open a private investor owned company. Buy 2 or 3 space shuttles (once the problems have been fixed of course), hire 2 crews to go on missions to capture and launch commercial satellites. Satellites can cost a billion dollars. However, shuttles (if you could go build one) cost over a billion dollars and cost hundreds of millions of dollars per flight. While that was an envisioned use of the space shuttle during design, it didn't pan out economically. -- DirecTV 4S launch costs were not close to a billion dollars. The following URL indicates the cost at over $200 Million including satellite, launch and insurance. http://www.satisfied-mind.com/direct...DirecTV-4S.htm |
In article ,
(KevinXKitchen) writes: Well I wonder how much it cost to replace a satellite like DirecTv or Echostar has. I figure it is at least 100 million dollars if not more- just to let it fall and burn up in space. I kind of have a business idea. Open a private investor owned company. Buy 2 or 3 space shuttles (once the problems have been fixed of course), hire 2 crews to go on missions to capture and launch commercial satellites. Then, as the satellite nears the end of its life, the customer fires it into low orbit, we fly up and catch it, bring it back to earth where it is refuled and any repairs or upgrades needed are done. Then we fly it back up and relaunch it and, on the same mission, we catch another satellite and bring it back. The question is, would this cheaper than building and launching a new satellite. It would effectively double the life of an existing satellite. I figure that, if it cost 100 million to build and launch a satellite, if we could capture, refurbish and relaunch it for $75 million, that saves a customer $25 million and we make money. Something like this might eventually be feasible, but not now, and certainly not with the existing space shuttles. Here are some figures: From http://www.durhamregion.com/dr/regio...-2440613c.html, regarding the cost of launching a commercial satellite: : The price tag: $600 million for manufacturing, insurance and launch costs. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle, regarding shuttle mission costs: : While the shuttle has been a reasonably successful launch vehicle, it had : been unable to meet its goals of radically reducing flight launch costs, : as each flight costs on the order of $500 million rather than initial : projections of $10 to $20 million. These figures may not be directly comparable, too. I know that shuttle launch cost estimates vary wildly depending on how they're computed. In any event, if you take these figures at face value, your proposal might have some merit, even with current technology; however, there are other hurdles that would increase costs of the shuttle mission or otherwise make it impractical. Most notably, you'd need to have some way to get the shuttle and satellite to rendezvous. Because the current shuttle can't get to geosynchronous orbit, that means you'd need to bring the satellite down to a lower orbit. The current satellites just aren't designed to do that. I'm not an expert on orbital mechanics, but they might just lack the fuel to do it. If so, you'd need to launch new satellites with bigger fuel reserves so they can eventually rendezvous for servicing, and that'd drive up the initial launch costs. Even if current satellites could rendezvous with a shuttle, they might not fit in the shuttle's cargo bay, so they might need to be cut up or serviced in orbit rather than brought back down. (In-orbit servicing would probably have other advantages, too, like reduced costs for launching the satellite again -- it takes a LOT of fuel to lob each pound into orbit.) Then there's the fact that you'd be risking lives on every such venture. As a private enterprise, a disaster might be less of a PR problem than a disaster when NASA loses a crew, but it'd still be ugly, and of course you'd have those lost lives on your conscience. Then there's the fact that there are only three US shuttles left (four if you count Enterprise, which as I understand it is too heavy to reach orbit), and NASA's not likely to sell them for years at most, and will probably put them in museums when they're retired rather than sell them. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see at least one of the remaining shuttles cannibalized for parts to keep two more working. There is no shuttle assembly line, so you can't buy a new one, and if you managed to buy one from NASA, it'd be very near the end of its useful life. You might have more luck buying a Russian Buran, but they're also not in production, and they're even less well-tested than the US shuttles (they've had just one unmanned flight). They've been rusting away, sitting in storage or converted to restaurants (really), so I doubt if any of them is even remotely flight-worthy. Of course, buying a US or Russian shuttle would cost a lot, and you'd need to build, or at least lease, launch pad facilities, ground control, etc. All of these factors combined would raise the costs, which would probably wipe out that $100 million difference between new-satellite launch and shuttle mission cost. In sum, I think this plan isn't workable without the development of a new and vastly improved launch vehicle and/or in-space infrastructure (say, a space station with satellite servicing facilities). It may well happen some day, but to start on it today, you'd need an excellent business plan and absolutely top-notch engineers to pull it off. -- Rod Smith, http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking |
Once upon a time, Jack Ak said:
Satellites can cost a billion dollars. DirecTV 4S launch costs were not close to a billion dollars. I said _can_ cost, trying to make the point that even at the higher end of satellite prices, they still aren't worth trying to work on. -- Chris Adams Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. |
KevinXKitchen wrote:
Another point that nobody's mentioned is that, to the best of my knowledge, the shuttle's satellite servicing missions have been to government-owned satellites. Even if a mission to service a GEO satellite were technically feasible, DirecTV would have to contract with NASA to do Well I wonder how much it cost to replace a satellite like DirecTv or Echostar has. I figure it is at least 100 million dollars if not more- just to let it fall and burn up in space. I kind of have a business idea. Open a private investor owned company. Buy 2 or 3 space shuttles (once the problems have been fixed of course), hire 2 crews to go on missions to capture and launch commercial satellites. Then, as the satellite nears the end of its life, the customer fires it into low orbit, we fly up and catch it, bring it back to earth where it is refuled and any repairs or upgrades needed are done. Then we fly it back up and relaunch it and, on the same mission, we catch another satellite and bring it back. The question is, would this cheaper than building and launching a new satellite. It would effectively double the life of an existing satellite. I figure that, if it cost 100 million to build and launch a satellite, if we could capture, refurbish and relaunch it for $75 million, that saves a customer $25 million and we make money. It might be silly- maybe the numbers won't work but then again, maybe they will. You would only have to train the crews really once since every mission would be essentially the same. By the time most satellites fail their technology is outdated. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
In sum, I think this plan isn't workable without the development of a new
and vastly improved launch vehicle and/or in-space infrastructure (say, a I can see that it is not workable right now but, if we could cut the price of a mission down to the $30 million range and buy a shuttle like vehicle, it might be in the future. Of course I am the same person who looked at the Bering Stait between Alaska and Russia and said "why not build a bridge there?". I had this idea about being able to drive from Argentina to South Africa. But then I figured out that the bridge just would not work there! |
In article ,
(KevinXKitchen) writes: Of course I am the same person who looked at the Bering Stait between Alaska and Russia and said "why not build a bridge there?". I had this idea about being able to drive from Argentina to South Africa. But then I figured out that the bridge just would not work there! Actually, you're not alone. I saw something on TV recently about a plan to build a bridge there. It'd be a massive record-breaker, and useable only part of each year. Support for building it is lackluster at the moment. My own thought when I saw the program is that, given recent improvements in tunneling technology, a tunnel might be more practical. At the very least, it wouldn't have the problems with being useable for only part of the year, they wouldn't need to worry about ice or wind stresses, etc. -- Rod Smith, http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking |
Rod Smith ) wrote in rec.video.satellite.dbs:
My own thought when I saw the program is that, given recent improvements in tunneling technology, a tunnel might be more practical. That'd be a switch...we dig a tunnel so that people from Asia can come to our side of the border. -- Jeff Rife | SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Goals.gif | | |
Actually, you're not alone. I saw something on TV recently about a plan
to build a bridge there. It'd be a massive record-breaker, and useable only part of each year. Support for building it is lackluster at the moment. Not only that but it would require that bouth the USA and Russia build highways connecting it to civilized society many hundreds of miles away. |
If it ever was built, you could drive a car or even ride a bike from Argentina
to South Africa! |
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
"KevinXKitchen" thought incorrectly: If it [bridge across Bering Sea] ever was built, you could drive a car or even ride a bike from Argentina to South Africa! Except for... www.google.com/search?q=darien+gap Unless you want to spend several months (years?) dragging your vehicle through the swamp on logs. Hardly driving. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com